Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > OK, I'm convinced: Single 1.8 G5 is the most appropriate for 90% of members here.

OK, I'm convinced: Single 1.8 G5 is the most appropriate for 90% of members here.
Thread Tools
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 01:06 PM
 
The more I look at the specs of the G5s, the cross-section of the members in the Power Mac forum here at MacNN, and the software used, I'm convinced that the dual 2.0 GHz G5 is overkill for >90% of people wanting a Power Mac.

For most apps, it would seem that a single G5 1.8 GHz would be significantly faster than a dual G4 1.42 GHz, mainly because of the limited SMP-ing in most Mac OS X apps, and because of the G4s incredibly miniscule bus bandwidth.

It's really apps like Mathematica, 3D rendering, and perhaps certain video encoding apps, etc. that would truly benefit from a dual 2.0 GHz G5.

I think this is why Apple has chosen to go with a single CPU mid-range. They don't NEED to go dual anymore because the CPUs are so damn fast. The dual Power Mac phenomenom always worried me, and it's nice to see Apple back in the saddle again. (Indeed, if I ever see a dual CPU Mac laptop, I'll be VERY worried, unless the there is a revolution in power characteristics of laptop CPUs or something.)

Actually, the single 1.6 would also be fine for most, but the single 1.8 seems like the better bang for the buck.

ie.

1.6 --> 1.8 - Big motherboard design changes.
1.8 --> 2.0 - Motherboard design similar, but add another processor for those who need it (which is probably less than 10% of Power Mac purchasers).

But then again, if you've got the money, then why not?
     
Skywalkers new Hand
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2001
Location: At the end of Lukes Arm.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 01:21 PM
 
Are you kidding? The Single 1.25 G4 is more then enough for people here.

I mean what percentage really do lots of Print or lots of high end Video work?

Most want a power Mac to surf for porn.

"Wedge, pull out! You're not doing any good back there!"
     
stuffedmonkey
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Washington DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 01:24 PM
 
Not just surf for porn, but be able to display a massive amount of porn while iChatting with one hand.
     
Eug Wanker  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 01:28 PM
 
Originally posted by Skywalkers new Hand:
Are you kidding? The Single 1.25 G4 is more then enough for people here.

I mean what percentage really do lots of Print or lots of high end Video work?

Most want a power Mac to surf for porn.
Yeah but I'm really talking about the situation where somebody with an old G4 500 or something needs to upgrade now, and I'm assuming the Power Mac users are the ones who need more than a GHz eMac.

You can still get the single 1.25 G4, but it costs almost as much as the single 1.6 G5, without all the extra goodies. No reason to get a single 1.25 G4 unless you need to boot into OS 9.

A 1.8 GHz would be pretty sweet for a new buyer, not hugely expensive at $2400, and it would last for quite some time.

But I'm glad that you agree with me that the 2.0 dual is overkill. Didn't you say you wanted to buy one?

Originally posted by stuffedmonkey:
Not just surf for porn, but be able to display a massive amount of porn while iChatting with one hand.
Yeah, especially now that Skywalker has a new and improved robotic hand that never tires...
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 01:29 PM
 
GAWD man! You sound like my GF!

GF: So tell me why you want a new $3000 computer... You just got a new Powerbook.

Me: Because it's fast.

GF: You keep talking about how fast that Powerbook is, are you saying it's not fast enough for you now? That this G5 is better?

Me: No, the G5 is just... faster.

GF: So this justifies you spending $3000 when the computer you already have will satisfy your needs?

Me: Silence woman! Can't you see that I need and crave more performance and mutiple processors?!? IT MUST BE MINE!!!

GF: So, you want this new G5 to simply satisfy your testosterone driven compulsion for more power?

Me: Well yeah... That's about it...

GF: I thought so.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
itai195
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cupertino, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 01:34 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
GAWD man! You sound like my GF!
Next time, ask her why she buys so many shoes... That tends to put an end to the girlfriend issue

Anyway, I agree that a 1.8GHz G5 is probably sufficient. But why settle for one when you can have two???
     
Commodus
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 01:36 PM
 
MacNStein: you could always argue that you want the performance of a desktop, and that the G5 is the best buy...
24-inch iMac Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz
     
Skywalkers new Hand
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2001
Location: At the end of Lukes Arm.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 01:38 PM
 
You don't look at the old hardware that they have, I do pro work very well on a G4 450 still but I wouldn't mind updating.

You need to look at what they do with their computers before you decide the need the 1.8 over the dual or 1.6.

"Wedge, pull out! You're not doing any good back there!"
     
Eug Wanker  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 01:51 PM
 
You don't look at the old hardware that they have, I do pro work very well on a G4 450 still but I wouldn't mind updating.

You need to look at what they do with their computers before you decide the need the 1.8 over the dual or 1.6.
I agree. <10% will need the 2.0 GHz dual, which was my main point. I also did say that the 1.6 would be sufficient for many.

Next time, ask her why she buys so many shoes... That tends to put an end to the girlfriend issue

Anyway, I agree that a 1.8GHz G5 is probably sufficient. But why settle for one when you can have two???
Is that G5s or GFs?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 01:57 PM
 
Originally posted by Commodus:
MacNStein: you could always argue that you want the performance of a desktop, and that the G5 is the best buy...
Nah... wouldn't work, my PB is pretty darn fast for all the work I do (except burning DVDs, the 1x SD is a tad too slow). However, $3000 for a new DVD-R is a bit steep.

No, truth be told, I don't need a G5... but I sure as hell do want one and by gawd, that's good enough for me.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 02:00 PM
 
Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Is that G5s or GFs?
You should have as many as you can afford and/or get away with.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
silverlode
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the land of milk and honey
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 02:17 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
GAWD man! You sound like my GF!

GF: So tell me why you want a new $3000 computer... You just got a new Powerbook.

Me: Because it's fast.

GF: You keep talking about how fast that Powerbook is, are you saying it's not fast enough for you now? That this G5 is better?

Me: No, the G5 is just... faster.

GF: So this justifies you spending $3000 when the computer you already have will satisfy your needs?

Me: Silence woman! Can't you see that I need and crave more performance and mutiple processors?!? IT MUST BE MINE!!!

GF: So, you want this new G5 to simply satisfy your testosterone driven compulsion for more power?

Me: Well yeah... That's about it...

GF: I thought so.


Interesting. My conversation went more like this:

Me: So I've made a spreadsheet detailing the price of these various systems from different vendors, configured with and without these components. If I sell my current G4 I can get this much and if I sell my old G3 I can get this much...so what do you think? Which system should I go for?

Wife: Why don't you just get the best system?

Me (stunned): Ok. Good.
calibrated in-phase cylindrical chamber technician
     
nikstar101
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 02:19 PM
 
I was thinking that the dual is a better buy than the singles. Since they will have a longer life span than the singles. If more and more companies become dual processor aware as well as OS X being dual processor aware, the computer will be more powerful therefore will last longer before becoming too slow for new software.

I mean if you take (i know this is a bit of a dodge but i think it works) the dual is only 1.5 times faster than its single processor partner eg. Dual 2GHz = Single 3GHZ. Then it will still be in use when theb 1.8 is too slow.

And for people like me who upgrade very rarely (still using the old 4400) the extra money spend will be chepaer than buying a new computer in say 3 years.

Nik
     
superfula
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 02:23 PM
 
I disagree. Aside from the heavy graphics-based apps, the dual 1.25 will give you better performance than the 1.8. It doesn't matter if every app isn't smp-coded. OSX IS coded for it, and it does a hell of a job at it. I think the G5s are waaay overpriced. When you can get a dual 1.25 for 1600 vs a 1.6G5 for 2000, there's no way you get the 1.6. Or the 1.8 for that matte, which is almost 1000 more than the dual 1.25. Sorry but the 1.8 isn't that much faster. Not to mention the absolute lack of expandability in the G5. They just aren't THAT fast to pick it over a dual G4
Lowendmac has a good writeup on this http://www.lowendmac.com/musings/03/0625.html
     
DeathMan
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Capitol City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 02:32 PM
 
How can you know if its really "that much faster" or not? They aren't even in their final configurations or anything.

Buying a pro machine with a G4 is stupid. STUPID. I'd say at the very most get an upgrade card for $400, or whatever they are, rather than spend that kind of cash on a OLD 1.25 gigaherz. Dual or no, I don't think it will hold a candle to the new 1.6. Thats just my opinion, since I haven't seen the new macs in action.

I think the Double Deuce is awesome. thats what I want. that thing will have a useful lifespan for a looooonggggg time.
     
scottiB
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Near Antietam Creek
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 02:35 PM
 
Originally posted by silverlode:
Interesting. My conversation went more like this:

Me: So I've made a spreadsheet detailing the price of these various systems from different vendors, configured with and without these components. If I sell my current G4 I can get this much and if I sell my old G3 I can get this much...so what do you think? Which system should I go for?

Wife: Why don't you just get the best system?

Me (stunned): Ok. Good.
Similar to my GF. After the relationship progressed and we cohabitated she said, "You'll never be in trouble if you bring technology home." I've tested that quote a few times, and she seems giddier than I am.
I am stupidest when I try to be funny.
     
Dogma
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cumbria, England
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 02:44 PM
 
Silly point really. My old 6400 is sufficient for my needs - as in it'll let me surf, let me run PS and DW, etc. It's just that it's as glacially slow at doing it.

There will be Apps that will make the most of a dual 2ghz G5. If you can spare the extra grand, I would buy it - it will be faster for longer.

I'm think I may get one, though may wait to see the new displays (still thinking about that Samsung display). There's some stuff I never do because it takes too long. Maybe it'll spur me onto new and better things. Whatever.
Hark, I hear a robin sig'ing in the trees!
Nae, there is no sog to be sug,
or am I wrog? Why can't I sig?
     
Mac Zealot
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Vallejo, Ca.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 02:51 PM
 
I could make use of a dual 2ghz g5 ^_^

see, when you buy a powerful computer, there's 3 things to keep in mind:

1. The faster/more powerful it is the longer it'll last
2. Eventually the day will come when you want to do something and that power will come in handy (much like how many americans have cars that can go faster then 60mph).
3. It makes the computer a little easier to deal with.

Seriously, down the road it's nice. My G4 is pushing 2 years and about the only things I really *WANT* to upgrade are the graphics card and ram.. and only the RAM is truly necessary and that's cheap.

tho I could definately make use of those dual 2ghz g5s ,the speed incraese isn't enough to make me drop 3k on another computer right now, that's money I could use on other goodies
In a realm beyond site, the sky shines gold, not blue, there the Triforce's might makes mortal dreams come true.
     
Eug Wanker  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 02:55 PM
 
Originally posted by superfula:
I disagree. Aside from the heavy graphics-based apps, the dual 1.25 will give you better performance than the 1.8. It doesn't matter if every app isn't smp-coded. OSX IS coded for it, and it does a hell of a job at it. I think the G5s are waaay overpriced. When you can get a dual 1.25 for 1600 vs a 1.6G5 for 2000, there's no way you get the 1.6. Or the 1.8 for that matte, which is almost 1000 more than the dual 1.25. Sorry but the 1.8 isn't that much faster. Not to mention the absolute lack of expandability in the G5. They just aren't THAT fast to pick it over a dual G4
Lowendmac has a good writeup on this http://www.lowendmac.com/musings/03/0625.html
Well, the benchmarks will tell, but IMHO even the 1.6 G5 will be MUCH faster than the dual 1.25 G4 in most non-SMP-optimized apps.

The dual 1.25 GHz G4 would do well on apps like Cinema 4D or whatever, but unfortunately, most apps are not so well SMP-optimized. And contrary to popular belief, OS X doesn't magically SMP-ize everything. For instance, with Bryce (if you're into that sort of thing), the single 1.6 G5 would wipe the floor with the dual 1.25 G4, no question.

Plus that $1999 price tag for the 1.6 G5 includes a SuperDrive. If you equalize everything between the two machines, the price difference is only $200.
Code:
1.6GHz G5 Dual 1.25GHz G4 with 2MB L3/CPU 256MB DDR333 (PC2700) - 2x128 256MB DDR333 (PC2700) - 1x256 80GB Serial ATA 80GB Ultra ATA drive NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra ATI Radeon 9000 Pro Combo Drive (DVD/CD-RW) Combo Drive (DVD/CD-RW) $1770 $1,570.00
Overall, I think the 1.6 GHz is the better deal, except for a very limited group of people.
     
Skywalkers new Hand
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2001
Location: At the end of Lukes Arm.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 03:00 PM
 
Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
For instance, with Bryce (if you're into that sort of thing), the single 1.6 G5 would wipe the floor with the dual 1.25 G4, no question.
True, but who the hell uses Bryce anyway? It is even canceled now.

"Wedge, pull out! You're not doing any good back there!"
     
eddiecatflap
Baninated
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: http://www.rotharmy.com
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 03:01 PM
 
..this isnt fair..

..apple has two incredible macs at one time..
     
Eug Wanker  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 03:13 PM
 
Originally posted by Skywalkers new Hand:
True, but who the hell uses Bryce anyway? It is even canceled now.
OK then, how about most of Photoshop? AFAIK, Photoshop doesn't do much SMP, except for a few filters.

Also don't forget the importance of bandwidth. The dual 1.25 G4 is hugely starved for bandwidth, with a paltry 167 MHz bus. The 1.6 GHz G5 has got gobs of bandwidth at 800 MHz.

One of the reasons that Intel on many apps is slowly pulling ahead from AMD in the 32-bit CPU x86 world is because Intel has addressed bandwidth concerns much better than AMD has. The 1.6 MHz G5 has bandwidth specs identical to the top-of-the-line Intel 3.0 GHz P4 motherboards, while the G4 motherboards have significantly lower bandwidth than even the AMD designs.
     
scottiB
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Near Antietam Creek
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 05:05 PM
 
Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
OK then, how about most of Photoshop? Also don't forget the importance of bandwidth. The dual 1.25 G4 is hugely starved for bandwidth, with a paltry 167 MHz bus. The 1.6 GHz G5 has got gobs of bandwidth at 800 MHz.
That's it, right there.

If, by magic, you could stick 2x1.42 G4s on a 800MHz bus, then the DP G4 would hold its own. As it is, the PM G4's chip and Alti-vec unit are waiting and waiting for information that is being clogged by a bus that's shared by two processors.

The 1.6 G5 is futurer-proof, I believe, because it can handle 4GB of memory. As memory becomes cheaper, you can load more in over time (like my eight slot IIci--I had 8x8MB for 64MB when prices fell to $50 for an 8MB chip.--WHAM!).

Wait for the real world benchmarks, I'm tellin' y'all. My DP-800 will write out MPEGs as comparatively fast as a 600Mhz iMac.
I am stupidest when I try to be funny.
     
Skywalkers new Hand
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2001
Location: At the end of Lukes Arm.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 05:28 PM
 
Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
OK then, how about most of Photoshop? AFAIK, Photoshop doesn't do much SMP, except for a few filters.
Where did you read that?

"Wedge, pull out! You're not doing any good back there!"
     
superfula
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 06:26 PM
 
Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Well, the benchmarks will tell, but IMHO even the 1.6 G5 will be MUCH faster than the dual 1.25 G4 in most non-SMP-optimized apps.

The dual 1.25 GHz G4 would do well on apps like Cinema 4D or whatever, but unfortunately, most apps are not so well SMP-optimized. And contrary to popular belief, OS X doesn't magically SMP-ize everything. For instance, with Bryce (if you're into that sort of thing), the single 1.6 G5 would wipe the floor with the dual 1.25 G4, no question.

Plus that $1999 price tag for the 1.6 G5 includes a SuperDrive. If you equalize everything between the two machines, the price difference is only $200.
Code:
1.6GHz G5 Dual 1.25GHz G4 with 2MB L3/CPU 256MB DDR333 (PC2700) - 2x128 256MB DDR333 (PC2700) - 1x256 80GB Serial ATA 80GB Ultra ATA drive NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra ATI Radeon 9000 Pro Combo Drive (DVD/CD-RW) Combo Drive (DVD/CD-RW) $1770 $1,570.00
Overall, I think the 1.6 GHz is the better deal, except for a very limited group of people.
Sorry, but OSX does an awesome job at SMP. It doesn't matter if the apps are smp aware or not, osx will take care of the smp on it's own. I'm not talking about Photoshop or Illustrator. I'm talking everyday normal apps...Safari, Mail, etc. Sure the G5 will launch programs faster and games will play better, but when you get into multitasking, the dual G4 is MUCH MUCH better than the 1.6 or 1.8.

Sorry DeathMan but your wrong. The G5 is a stupid purchase. It is HARDLY future proof. SATA is just barely off the ground, and very few have these types of drives. Do they even make any cards for pci-x (or whatever it's called)? We're looking at probably 2 years before this tech even gets used. And then to not be able to put in another cdr-type drive is rediculous. The G5 as it is, is a very poor purchase given the prices of the G4. And only two harddrive slots? Please! 80gig is nothing anymore. Plop down another 100 for anothe 80gig drive and your only at 160 with zero open slots.

And if you guys believe Apple's benchmarks....well then I have quarter I'll sell to you for 50 dollars. There's NO WAY the G5 will fair as well against the P4 in real world benchmarks.

Taken from lowendmac...
"Comparing a single processor 1.6 GHz or 1.8 GHz G5 to the dual 1.25 GHz G4 is more complex. When running OS X applications, a pair of 1.25 GHz G4s will provide the equivalent of a 2.0 to 2.5 GHz G4. We'll split the difference and call it 2.25 GHz.

MHz for MHz, the Power Mac G5 would have to be 40% more efficient than the Power Mac G4 for the 1.6 GHz entry-level model to match the power of a pair of 1.25 GHz G4s. We are going to see improved efficiencies thanks to the new CPU design, HyperTransport, and faster memory, but I don't expect that to improve overall system performance by more than 20-25%. (We're not talking about CPU benchmarks here, but benchmarks that test the whole computer.)"
     
exa
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 06:46 PM
 
Also if you scale the Skidmarks tests, if it is in any way accurate, the DP1250 isn't that bad:

Single G4/1ghz: 100 100 100
Single G4/1.25: 125 125 125
Single G5/2ghz: 170 270 208

Single G5/1.6 ~136 216 166
Single G5/1.8: ~153 243 187
Dual G4/1.25: ~250 250 250

So the DP1250 can certainly hold on its own, esp for multithreaded stuff.

Of course these are only benchmarks... Bus proably makes a huge effect so I wouldn't be surprised if a G5/1.6 kills a DP1250 at almost everything.

But of course, I'm super biased since I have a DP1250 and dislike the fact that it is obsolete (well single processor now, cause its so #@%#@$ hot here, don't need another heater... thanks CHUD! Runs a lot quieter too). Meh, I can put 4 HDs and 2 Optical drives in so nyah.
     
Leonard
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 07:44 PM
 
Originally posted by superfula:

Sorry DeathMan but your wrong. The G5 is a stupid purchase. It is HARDLY future proof. SATA is just barely off the ground, and very few have these types of drives. Do they even make any cards for pci-x (or whatever it's called)? We're looking at probably 2 years before this tech even gets used. And then to not be able to put in another cdr-type drive is rediculous. The G5 as it is, is a very poor purchase given the prices of the G4. And only two harddrive slots? Please! 80gig is nothing anymore. Plop down another 100 for anothe 80gig drive and your only at 160 with zero open slots.
Hmmmm, it seems like only yesterday we had people saying why did Apple put USB and Firewire on the new Macs and take away my ADB and SCSI port. There aren't any USB or Firewire devices around. All of a sudden we had USB and Firewire devices up the ying-yang. Apple has always pushed the new standards and I think Mac users are better for it. There are a few PCI-X cards and I bet in a matter of months we'll see more. Third party vendors aren't stupid. When they see a way of making money, they go for it. As well SATA drives come in greater sizes than 80GB, you can get 120GB and higher sized SATA drives.

Originally posted by superfula:

Taken from lowendmac...
"Comparing a single processor 1.6 GHz or 1.8 GHz G5 to the dual 1.25 GHz G4 is more complex. When running OS X applications, a pair of 1.25 GHz G4s will provide the equivalent of a 2.0 to 2.5 GHz G4. We'll split the difference and call it 2.25 GHz.
Any knowledgeable person knows that a two 1.25 G4s don't perform as fast as a 2.5 G4 and you'd be lucky to even get the performance of a 2.25 G4. There is processing overhead to SMP.
Mac Pro Dual 3.0 Dual-Core
MacBook Pro
     
itai195
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cupertino, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 08:32 PM
 
Contrast:

Originally posted by superfula:
The G5 is a stupid purchase. It is HARDLY future proof.
with:

Originally posted by superfula:
SATA is just barely off the ground, and very few have these types of drives. Do they even make any cards for pci-x (or whatever it's called)? We're looking at probably 2 years before this tech even gets used.
Nice argument!
     
Leonard
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 08:38 PM
 
Originally posted by superfula:

And if you guys believe Apple's benchmarks....well then I have quarter I'll sell to you for 50 dollars. There's NO WAY the G5 will fair as well against the P4 in real world benchmarks.
Oh, and if you don't believe Apple's benchmarks, then tell me one thing, if Apple's benchmarks are a lie, why are they lower than IBM's benchmarks of the PowerPC 970. IBM themselves have announced benchmarks for the 970 of :

Specint 937 @ 1.8GHz
Specfp 1051 @ 1.8GHz

Apple's benchmarks are:

Specint 800 @ 2.0GHz
Specfp 840 @ 2.0GHz

IBM probably optimized things for the G5 whereas Apple tried to make the playing field fair for the comparisons of the G5 to the P4 and Xeon.
Mac Pro Dual 3.0 Dual-Core
MacBook Pro
     
scottiB
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Near Antietam Creek
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 08:49 PM
 
Originally posted by Leonard:
Hmmmm, it seems like only yesterday we had people saying why did Apple put USB and Firewire on the new Macs and take away my ADB and SCSI port. There aren't any USB or Firewire devices around. All of a sudden we had USB and Firewire devices up the ying-yang. Apple has always pushed the new standards and I think Mac users are better for it. There are a few PCI-X cards and I bet in a matter of months we'll see more. Third party vendors aren't stupid. When they see a way of making money, they go for it. As well SATA drives come in greater sizes than 80GB, you can get 120GB and higher sized SATA drives.
I agree. Wait until MWSF '04, and there'll be more PCI-X. FW800, and SATA stuff than you can shake a stick at.

Any knowledgeable person knows that a two 1.25 G4s don't perform as fast as a 2.5 G4 and you'd be lucky to even get the performance of a 2.25 G4. There is processing overhead to SMP.
Yeah, that LEM article gives the G4s too much credit and the entire G5 system too little. I'm not deluding myself into thinking my DP800 = a 1.6GHz G4--or even a 1.42.
I am stupidest when I try to be funny.
     
Eug Wanker  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 09:27 PM
 
Sorry, but OSX does an awesome job at SMP. It doesn't matter if the apps are smp aware or not, osx will take care of the smp on it's own.
These Photoshop filters are not SMP-optimized:



I'm not talking about Photoshop or Illustrator.
Why not? That's where having extra speed might actually matter. A 1 GHz G4 handles mail and Safari just fine.

Single G4/1ghz: 100 100 100
Single G4/1.25: 125 125 125
Single G5/2ghz: 170 270 208

Single G5/1.6 ~136 216 166
Single G5/1.8: ~153 243 187
Dual G4/1.25: ~250 250 250
If you look closer, you see the monstrous FP performance of the single 1.8. It roughly should be about twice the speed of a single 1.25 GHz G4. A lot of truly CPU intensive apps depend upon FP perforumance, or so I've been told. Altivec optimization is also important of course, there are less Altivec'd 3rd party apps unfortunately.

But of course, Apple itself says that Skidmarks is not a very good measure of system performance. Skidmarks doesn't consider memory bandwidth at all.

It is HARDLY future proof. SATA is just barely off the ground, and very few have these types of drives. Do they even make any cards for pci-x (or whatever it's called)?
That's a pretty strange argument. It's not future proof because it has features that will be used in the future that other machines don't have?

Furthermore, SATA is not the future. It is now. It's pretty easy to get these drives locally. The place I get stuff from carries it in stock. If you can't find it at the local store, it usually takes one day to arrive from the wholesaler.

PCI-X is a different story, but not that it matters. Cards exist for it but usually aren't necessary. Fortunately it's backwards compatible so it's not as if you're losing anything.

BTW, you forgot Firewire 800 and USB 2.

80gig is nothing anymore. Plop down another 100 for anothe 80gig drive and your only at 160 with zero open slots.
[quote]Meh, I can put 4 HDs and 2 Optical drives in so nyah.[quote]I'd recommend getting at least a 160 to start off with. You can add a 250 later if you wish. I do agree the limited drive bays is a drawback though.

When running OS X applications, a pair of 1.25 GHz G4s will provide the equivalent of a 2.0 to 2.5 GHz G4. We'll split the difference and call it 2.25 GHz.
This is of course utter nonsense. See above picture.

MHz for MHz, the Power Mac G5 would have to be 40% more efficient than the Power Mac G4 for the 1.6 GHz entry-level model to match the power of a pair of 1.25 GHz G4s. We are going to see improved efficiencies thanks to the new CPU design, HyperTransport, and faster memory, but I don't expect that to improve overall system performance by more than 20-25%. (We're not talking about CPU benchmarks here, but benchmarks that test the whole computer.)
Actually on average, one can estimate that a dual processor machine is about 30-50% faster than a single processor machine. Thus, that'd be in the ballpark of a 1.75 GHz G4 system, which most likely on average would be slower than a 1.6 GHz G5 system. For SMP-optimized apps, it might as high as say 80%, but non-optimized apps, it might be as low as say 10-15%.
     
RMXO
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 09:28 PM
 
Originally posted by MacNStein:
GAWD man! You sound like my GF!

GF: So tell me why you want a new $3000 computer... You just got a new Powerbook.

Me: Because it's fast.

GF: You keep talking about how fast that Powerbook is, are you saying it's not fast enough for you now? That this G5 is better?

Me: No, the G5 is just... faster.

GF: So this justifies you spending $3000 when the computer you already have will satisfy your needs?

Me: Silence woman! Can't you see that I need and crave more performance and mutiple processors?!? IT MUST BE MINE!!!

GF: So, you want this new G5 to simply satisfy your testosterone driven compulsion for more power?

Me: Well yeah... That's about it...

GF: I thought so.

oh ****. thats how my wife sounded when i wanted to buy the Gigabook then 12" PB then 17" PB then G5. (i kepted trying cus she kepted on denying) sadly to say the end result was similar to yours.
( Last edited by RMXO; Jun 27, 2003 at 09:35 PM. )
MacBook Pro 15" Unibody | iPhone 16GB 3G
     
superfula
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 10:01 PM
 
Eug...a dual processor system will give you quite a bit more than 30-50% more power. Lowendmac is pretty close in the 2.25 guestimate. You don't give OSX enough credit as an SMP aware os.

Like I said, the G5 isn't future proof. No place to upgrade (the iMac has almost as much expansion possibilities as the G5), who knows if PCI-X will take off, given the other alternative (pci-extreme). It will be a couple years before either takes off. Sata drives are around, but very few actually use them. Again, it will be awhile before sata takes hold. Having to buy 2 memory sticks at once just to updgrade is a huge negative. No longer can you just spend 80 dollars for 512mb of ram, unless you want to throw in two small 256sticks.

I could go on and on. Given the facts, there's no way you can say Apple's tests were fair. The spec tests Apple did with the G4 and Xeon came out with lower scores than what SPEC has on their webpage. It was obvious Apple had it rigged up to their advantage. Even on Apple's tests, the dual 2gig didn't beat the single P4 by that much.

Face it people, these are overpriced machines. If they had come out with a lowend of around $1500, then they'd be a good deal.

If you want to be so Maccentric, go ahead. You need to realize the G5 ISN'T that great. Come MWSF 04 when they are updated again, then maybe the G5 will be the killer machine Apple makes it out to be. But until then, the dual 1.25G4 is the obvious choice vs the 1.6 and 1.8 G5s
     
Eug Wanker  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2003, 10:36 PM
 
Eug...a dual processor system will give you quite a bit more than 30-50% more power. Lowendmac is pretty close in the 2.25 guestimate. You don't give OSX enough credit as an SMP aware os
Did you even look at the graph above?

Having to buy 2 memory sticks at once just to updgrade is a huge negative. No longer can you just spend 80 dollars for 512mb of ram, unless you want to throw in two small 256sticks.
Well, that's one reason to get the 8-slotted 1.8, but if I had a 1.6 I'd probably start out with 2x256 and add another 2x512 for a total of 1.5 GB.

Number of slots/max RAM:
G4: 4 slots/up to 2 (4?) GB max
1.6 G5: 4 slots/up to 4 (8?) GB max
1.8 G5: 8 slots/up to 16 GB max

If you want future proof, 2 GB isn't too impressive.

f you want to be so Maccentric, go ahead.
Heheh. "Maccentric." My desktop is a PC actually, partially because the G4 Power Mac line of late was overpriced in terms of performance. (The slow-bussed G4 is good enough for my laptop though.) I'm looking forward to a DDR-capable G4 in the iMacs and PowerBooks though.

You need to realize the G5 ISN'T that great.
Well obviously, we differ here. The G5 IS that great. The new memory and front side bus design is revolutionary in terms of the Mac. Whereas the single-pumped and slow bus design of the G4 line is approximately 3 years out-of-date, the G5 has the most advanced bus design in the personal computing world.
     
Arkham_c
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2003, 12:31 AM
 
I warned my wife more than a year ago that this machine was coming, and that I'd be buying one.

Now I just gotta get the cash together. I'm selling my Sawtooth G4, my B&W G3, my Daystar Genesis, and whatever else I can find.

I gotta go for the 2GHz.
Mac Pro 2x 2.66 GHz Dual core, Apple TV 160GB, two Windows XP PCs
     
Nep2ne
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Richmond, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2003, 01:36 AM
 
Originally posted by superfula:
Eug...a dual processor system will give you quite a bit more than 30-50% more power. Lowendmac is pretty close in the 2.25 guestimate. You don't give OSX enough credit as an SMP aware os.

Like I said, the G5 isn't future proof. No place to upgrade (the iMac has almost as much expansion possibilities as the G5), who knows if PCI-X will take off, given the other alternative (pci-extreme). It will be a couple years before either takes off. Sata drives are around, but very few actually use them. Again, it will be awhile before sata takes hold. Having to buy 2 memory sticks at once just to updgrade is a huge negative. No longer can you just spend 80 dollars for 512mb of ram, unless you want to throw in two small 256sticks.

Face it people, these are overpriced machines. If they had come out with a lowend of around $1500, then they'd be a good deal.

If you want to be so Maccentric, go ahead. You need to realize the G5 ISN'T that great. Come MWSF 04 when they are updated again, then maybe the G5 will be the killer machine Apple makes it out to be. But until then, the dual 1.25G4 is the obvious choice vs the 1.6 and 1.8 G5s
I don't think you are being fair, as PCI-X, SATA and AGP8x are new technologies, there are plenty of developers out there cranking out new products for these protocols.

That being said, I just ordered a dual 1.25GHz/combo G4 (boy, do I feel stupid!). My main beef is that the G5 is REV A. People, come on -- does this not count for something? The technology is amazing, but REV. A machines almost always have problems, sooner or later.

The dude that said that buying a G4 for pro work was stupid ("Buying a pro machine with a G4 is stupid. STUPID.") -- well, I think you are trying to justify the fact that the G5 is REV A. The future looks bright, sure, but I'd MUCH rather get the last of the proven G4s than the first G5 on the block.

Speed? What does it matter if it's not reliable? I will say this again to hammer the point -- speed will not matter if the machine won't boot. Four thermal chambers? 9 fans? What if just one of those fans goes haywire a month after you get it, and you find yourself with a new dual that wont boot? And Apple is packing SO MUCH new technology into this machine, too -- heat is just one of MANY issues. There is a NEW motherboard design, a NEW bus all to compliment the NEW processor.

How productive can you be doing your 'pro work' when your machine is in the shop? New hardware is great, new technology is amazing -- but think before you buy the first Rev, people! I've worked as an Apple tech and seen the worst-case scenarios, I've also seen great new releases. This is one release that took me NO TIME to decide upon. Once the G5 was announced, and G4 prices lowered -- I jumped on the G4!

Good luck is all. I hope everything I said above will not come true, honestly, and that the first Revs will be great machines. Who knows, I'll likely repeat this story when the G6's come out in another two-three years!
------
Friend of All Cats.
     
itai195
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cupertino, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2003, 01:52 AM
 
Originally posted by superfula:
Like I said, the G5 isn't future proof. No place to upgrade (the iMac has almost as much expansion possibilities as the G5), who knows if PCI-X will take off, given the other alternative (pci-extreme). It will be a couple years before either takes off. Sata drives are around, but very few actually use them. Again, it will be awhile before sata takes hold. Having to buy 2 memory sticks at once just to updgrade is a huge negative. No longer can you just spend 80 dollars for 512mb of ram, unless you want to throw in two small 256sticks.
Do you still not see how you're contradicting yourself in this paragraph? It's not future proof, yet it has all this technology that nobody will use for years. If you can't appreciate early adoption of some of this technology, then I don't know why you'd ever bother with Apple (early adopters of firewire, usb, dvd burners, 802.11b, etc). Believe it or not, Apple's adoption of a particular technology often boosts that technology's chances of success, because a lot of the industry watches what Apple does. I'm not aware of any reason why serial ATA would not catch on, by the way.

The iMac has almost as much expansion??? Sure, if you ignore that the G5 has firewire 800, 3 high speed pci slots, two spots for hard disks, a removable optical drive, usb 2, 8 ram slots, gigabit ethernet, optical digital audio, support for 2 displays, and a removable AGP graphics card. I guess these things don't matter at all?

I also don't understand your memory complaint. You can spend $80 for two small 256MB sticks if you want to add 512MB, what difference does it make? Considering that you now have twice as many memory slots, it doesn't make much of a difference at all. This may be a valid complaint about the 1.6GHz machine, but not the 1.8.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2003, 10:05 AM
 
By the way, if you're wanting to avoid getting a new G4 setup, and are considering waiting until revision B, that's a pretty smart thing to do, esp. since I wouldn't be surprised if the speed is ramped up very quickly.

I am convinced that the Power Mac case design is overly built for just the dual 2.0 PPC 970. I would guess it wouldn't even break a sweat with a dual 2.5, where heat dissipation might go up as much as 50%, and a 3.0 (perhaps at 0.09 um) wouldn't be a problem either. Anyways, what I'm saying is that they built this case with the near future in mind, and perhaps a dual 2.4 or 2.5 will appear in the next Power Mac revision in Q1 2004.

This would like mean new updates down the line too (Jan 2004):

Low end: 2.0 GHz PPC 970
Mid end: 2.2 GHz PPC 970
High end: Dual 2.4 GHz PPC 970

So in 6 months you'll get may get a 2.0 or 2.2 GHz G5 at the same price as the current 1.6 or 1.8, and it will be a Revision B. Maybe I'll actually buy a single 2.2 GHz Power Mac then. (I am trying to come up with an excuse to buy a current 1.8, but I just don't have the need for it yet. )
( Last edited by Eug; Jun 28, 2003 at 10:11 AM. )
     
Arkham_c
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2003, 10:31 AM
 
The simple truth is that for the past year+, Windows machines have gotten to the point that they are so fast that there is very little demand for increasing speeds.

Now that the Mac is comparable in performance, I suspect we'll find ourselves in the same boat. The dual-2GHz machine is so fast that anything faster will not be significantly more useful or compelling.

Someone needs to invent an application that needs more power before people will think current machines are slow. Outside of the server arena, such applications don't exist.

I suspect that dual-G5 with a Radeon 9800 Pro will even be plenty fast for id software's new Doom release.
Mac Pro 2x 2.66 GHz Dual core, Apple TV 160GB, two Windows XP PCs
     
RevEvs
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sitting in front of computer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2003, 10:36 AM
 
For what i do 99% of the time my G4 450 surfices (although a little slow) - Im still getting a dual G5 though - maybe it wont be needed now, but i intend to still have it as my main machine in 4yrs, so by then ill probablly be glad.

revs

oh, and got nothing better to spend my money on
I free'd my mind... now it won't come back.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:56 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,