[hoopla2000]

Well... Mhz(Ghz)gap just keep widening despite Steve Jobs new year's resolution to narrow it and catch up eventually(no idea if he went on to say he'll CATCH UP,though).

He claims Dual 800 G4 is faster by hoppin 83 % than IBM 1.7 Ghz machine... specifically with some PS filters they picked up.

I can't help but doubt whether or not he is serious about living up to his resolution... It's gettin pathetic.

[Jsnuff1]

at least we do have proccessor that are more or less faster than pentiums, who cares about mhz, wish the rest of the world could understand that

[paterss]

MHz is a big myth - why do you think Intel markets so hard on the MHz alone ?

The graph Apple showed needs to be published far and wide.

Other reasons for buying Apple could be its power consumption.
Apple machines consume less power than their Intel counterparts - even at the same MHz, combined with an Apple (or any ) LCD screen - I wonder just how much energy is saved ??

Stuart

Bear in mind:

top end PC: 1.7 Ghz
top end Mac: 2*800=1.6 Ghz

If a PC user wants the top end PC with gigabit networking ( which on PCI costs ... a lot), then they will be paying about the same as we would for the Mac. Tie this in with the performance tests, show the PC user that a G4@867 can beat a 1.7 Ghz PIV, well ... its 1 + 1 isn't it?

Originally posted by <unregistered>:
<STRONG>Bear in mind:

top end PC: 1.7 Ghz
top end Mac: 2*800=1.6 Ghz

If a PC user wants the top end PC with gigabit networking ( which on PCI costs ... a lot), then they will be paying about the same as we would for the Mac. Tie this in with the performance tests, show the PC user that a G4@867 can beat a 1.7 Ghz PIV, well ... its 1 + 1 isn't it?</STRONG>

Well ...2 processors does not equal (ClockRateP1)+(ClockRateP2) ... but it is an improvement.

Now ...
Why is it that noone has any trouble believing that a 400Mhz P1 is slower than a 400Mhz P2??? (Assuming that they both existed at the same clock speeds). However we all seem to have trouble with the concept that an 800Mhz G4 is NOT the same as an 800Mhz P3 (Or AMD or whatever)

There is a reason for why Steve didn't compare the G4 with an AMD Athlon processor...

[Ken_F2]

If a PC user wants the top end PC with gigabit networking ( which on PCI costs ... a lot),

It only costs $109.50 to add PCI gigabit ethernet networking to a PC. See this page.

It costs $700-$750 to add the Pioneer DVD-RW "Superdrive" to a PC.

It costs an extra $375 to upgrade from a single processor AMD Athlon 1.40GHz system to a dual processor Athlon 1.40GHz system. By comparison, Apple charges an extra $1000 for dual processing.

OK, I was looking at a PCI card that cost �800 - about $1200?
It was worth it when I looked at these prices - I didn't really look around!

Even if DP800 dousn't mean 1.6 Ghz, performance of DP's is comparable, if not slightly better than that of a single processor running at the 'perceived' speed.

To me, it doesn't really matter if people don't accept that the macs are as fast or faster than PC's. The bottom line is, I'm not using a computer that runs windows - that's the selling point to me.

[pele]

Originally posted by &lt;unregistered&gt;:
<STRONG>Bear in mind:

top end PC: 1.7 Ghz
top end Mac: 2*800=1.6 Ghz

If a PC user wants the top end PC with gigabit networking ( which on PCI costs ... a lot), then they will be paying about the same as we would for the Mac. Tie this in with the performance tests, show the PC user that a G4@867 can beat a 1.7 Ghz PIV, well ... its 1 + 1 isn't it?</STRONG>

Wow! That's some selective math I'd never seen before. Funny thing, my 8 month old PC is running at 2x1 Ghz= 2 Ghz.

In the universe that I live in there are 2x1.7 Ghz Pentium 4s and 2x1.2 Ghz Atlon MPs, how about yours?

[Randycat2001]

A 1.7 P4 isn't the 1.7 Ghz worth of performance you would expect.
http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenT...3&m=9800906232

[hoopla2000]

It's so confusing Apple switches from single CPU to dual without making it clear enuff how much improvement can be achieved by making it dual under certain OS.

I heard OS before X cannot take advantage of a dual processor very much. If so, would we be able to take advantage of dual CPU at all if most software we use are not yet fully supported under OS X?

I believe most design agency or hardcore multimedia gurus haven't made a transition to OS X due to software incompability, so who are the Dual 800 G4 DT targeted?

Is two processor a lot better than one? Can anybody explain how much , if any, improvement can we expect to have dual processor running under OS 9.1?

hm... so confusin

[Mark N]

Originally posted by Ken_F2:
<STRONG>

It only costs $109.50 to add PCI gigabit ethernet networking to a PC. See this page.

It costs $700-$750 to add the Pioneer DVD-RW "Superdrive" to a PC.

It costs an extra $375 to upgrade from a single processor AMD Athlon 1.40GHz system to a dual processor Athlon 1.40GHz system. By comparison, Apple charges an extra $1000 for dual processing.</STRONG>

Actually, Apple only charges $600 to 867 Mhz to the dual 800 Mhz. Gigabit is standard so really their is about a $500 charge to upgrade the 867 to a dual.

You can get a dual for about $2600, by reducing the extras.

[Jinx]

That's exactly why I didn't upgrade to OS X yet.
OS 9 does everything I need right now, but I am going to soon now.
I have only used OS X for about 2 minutes when I was at my local Apple dealer, it was great.
heh, I'm going through the same expirience most of you went through probably 6 months ago.

[uochris]

Originally posted by paterss:
<STRONG>MHz is a big myth - why do you think Intel markets so hard on the MHz alone ?

The graph Apple showed needs to be published far and wide.

Other reasons for buying Apple could be its power consumption.
Apple machines consume less power than their Intel counterparts - even at the same MHz, combined with an Apple (or any ) LCD screen - I wonder just how much energy is saved ??

Stuart</STRONG>

Apple is fefaturing the MHZ Myth on the front page of Apple.com. http://www.apple.com/g4/myth/

[Matsu]

Assuming that the second 800 exactly doubles the performance of one 800 (which it doesn't achieve), then that would suggest that since a 83% improvement is nearly double the speed, one 800 alone should match a P4 pretty closely (slightly better in some cases/worse in others). An 866 G4 is probably likewise comparable to a 1.7-2.0Ghz P4.

I think the only test that could mean anything is to take to comparable systems and time them in the same tasks. Launching apps, crunching numbers, rendering images etc. Prive then becomes an issue. And the windows side is doing better there, but not so dramatically as one mighjt think. If you want a system from a major manufacturer (and not a generic PC built by some small time assembler) the prices go up. Those cheap systems can be plenty fast, but their reliability/support is suspect.

[ctt1wbw]

God, get over the Mhz thing already. And forget this "we" stuff when comparing Apple's vs Wintels stuff. It's not "we" unless you actually make the CPU's or something. Stop taking it so personal.

Make the bad man stop!

[superlarry]

I'm going to point again to the best article I've ever seen on the MHz subject, when read in conjunction with the AMD article mentioned and linked in the article: http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/01q2/...4andg4e-1.html
It's a rather neutral stance on the differences between Intel's Pentium 4 and the Motorola G4e, and it cites those differences in an explanatory way in regards to the chip-producer's interests. If you don't know anything, definitely read away and make your own opinions. If you think you know what you're talking about, you may not, so check it out.

[slipjack]

What really matters now is getting OS X up to speed and using Adobe products. Right now, I use a 350 Mhz G4 w/ 1 gig ram at home and it really isn't that much slower than my 450 dual w/1 gig ram at work. Having a crapload of ram to throw at Photoshop helps more than 100 Mhz does.

I've also noticed the problems PC users have with Photoshop when connected to a network. Slow opening of files, system near-freezes, even crashes. The Mac deals much better with Network traffic/overhead than the PC. These things matter in today's business world even more than the Mhz race IMHO.

Now I happen to be excited that Mac's finally have gotten to the 800 Mhz point. Finally the G4 is overtaking the G3.

All the bull**** about the Velocity engine was just that. My Radius Supermac w/500 Mhz G3 still feels faster than my G4 350. Yes, the G4 does some things better like encoding but Mhz DO matter to a point.

Sigh, now I'm arguing with myself. Still, dual 800 Mhz is a great step in the right direction. You should be able to blaze through most programs.

Again, the biggest obstacle to the Mac right now is OS X and the fact that major players like Adobe have still yet to release thier software.

Most Designers are Mac users.... duh. You think we'd like create some graphics on the Mac? Hmm... Can't create graphics with itunes or idvd or itools or imovie now can we. Unless we are supposed to just start using the lovely prefab graphics that Apple provides us...

Anyway, I bet the that the dual 800 on OS X 10.1 probably gives the 1.7 P4 a run for it's money...

Now that I think about it, does anyone know if those tests Steve did were on a native OS X Photoshop? I wonder...

[AirSluf]

It's so confusing Apple switches from single CPU to dual without making it clear enuff how much improvement can be achieved by making it dual under certain OS.

I heard OS before X cannot take advantage of a dual processor very much. If so, would we be able to take advantage of dual CPU at all if most software we use are not yet fully supported under OS X?

I believe most design agency or hardcore multimedia gurus haven't made a transition to OS X due to software incompability, so who are the Dual 800 G4 DT targeted?

Is two processor a lot better than one? Can anybody explain how much , if any, improvement can we expect to have dual processor running under OS 9.1?

hm... so confusin

2 is A LOT better than one in most circumstances. overhead is 10% or less depending on programming so DP means about 1.9 X max performance. I normally see the processors running about 170-180% or so with some higher spikes during heavy usage in a well threaded application. Most of the time. My DP500 runs a Java app written for school faster than my partners t-bird 1.4 if that gives a real world, non Photoshop perspective. The app is graphics and network stream driven update intensive and heavily multi-threaded. His frame rates **** if he takes over 200 server streams in and mine handles the required 300 without any hiccups or slowdowns.

OS 9.1 barely speaks multi-processor. The application needs specific coding to access the second processor at all, and the system ignores it for it's own business. Everything receives at least some benefit in X as there normally 30% system overhead to run a user application, and all that overhead can be farmed off chip to allow single threaded applications to run unmolested. and multi-threaded applications can get max benefit.

I think the DP800 is targeted at the video types FCP, DVD Studio Pro and just more horsepower in general. You can get a lot of speed from Virtual PC with that kind of horesepower. That allows marketing to corporate clients wanting to upgrade 300-600Mhz Pentiums without them having to throw everything out the window. not the easiest transition but before that was totally unworkable, VPC was too slow to use unless you HAD to, now on a DP800 it probably isn't anymore. Even the publishing houses running Macs will start to think about upgrading to 9.2 and new boxes if they get that much speed return which means less waiting and more $$ in pocket. Then they will start working from Classic and be ready when the upgrades do finally arrive to their standard apps.

[cmcleod design]

Now that I think about it, does anyone know if those tests Steve did were on a native OS X Photoshop? I wonder...

He rebooted into OS 9 to do the photoshop test