[John B. Smith]

Why the hell do we still put up with G3 and g4 processors? Apple needs to give us customers a choice.. I'd much rather have a Mac running at speeds up to 2 ghz than some panty-waste 733mhz thing.. and it'd be better for Apple too, because consumers want raw speed, not "gigaFLOPS".. I dont even know what a gigaflop is, and I doubt anybody else does. My point is that when I buy my next mac, I want the option of having a less expensive (and much faster) pentium chip in my mac.. of course I could always buy a PC, but I'd rather not do that

how could you understand a gigaflop when you don't understand a megahertz?

[Scotttheking]

Oh yeah, that'd be a good seller

The pentium 4 is a really crappy chip. I will not get a P4 in any of my systems. If you want a chip, at least ask for the new Palomino core athlons from AMD.
There are many performance indicators. With the P4 intel is digging itself into a hole. I don't feel like going into details.

Edit: by the way, the P4 isn't cheaper then the G4.

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Scotttheking ]

[John B. Smith]

who cares if you think the pentium 4 is crappy chip?? obviously your completely wrong, otherwise the g4 would be the most widely used chip by regular consumers and professionals alike

[spectre]

"Why the hell do we still put up with G3 and g4 processors? Apple needs to give us customers a choice.. I'd much rather have a Mac running at speeds up to 2 ghz than some panty-waste 733mhz thing.. and it'd be better for Apple too, because consumers want raw speed, not "gigaFLOPS".. I dont even know what a gigaflop is, and I doubt anybody else does. My point is that when I buy my next mac, I want the option of having a less expensive (and much faster) pentium chip in my mac.. of course I could always buy a PC, but I'd rather not do that"

First off.. Intels chips aren't all that cheap. Maybe you should look at AMD's chips?

Second off.. You are obviously totally confused when it comes to Mhz. Ever heard of the "Mhz Myth"? While Mhz does in fact have a lot to do with the speed of which the computer runs, there are many other factors. For example the p4 has a 20 stage pipeline compared to the (is it 7?) stage pipleline in the g4. If Apple can get out the 1.6ghz g5 with a 10 stage pipeline... it will most likely kill what intel has to offer. AMD on the other hand will probably have something competitive.

Oh yeah.. the 733 g4 is the low end g4. Think dual 800...

Ben

[Scotttheking]

Originally posted by John B. Smith:
<STRONG>who cares if you think the pentium 4 is crappy chip?? obviously your completely wrong, otherwise the g4 would be the most widely used chip by regular consumers and professionals alike</STRONG>

I don't think. I know.
As the system administrator for about 110 machines in a public university, it is my job to choose the highest quality components. I use AMD chips in almost all of our systems, and all new systems have AMD chips.

The intelligent group of computer users don't use the P4. They know that the P4 is built for high GHz #s, not built for performance.

[SpeedRacer]

Originally posted by John B. Smith:
<STRONG>Why the hell do we still put up with G3 and g4 processors? Apple needs to give us customers a choice.. I'd much rather have a Mac running at speeds up to 2 ghz than some panty-waste 733mhz thing.. and it'd be better for Apple too, because consumers want raw speed, not "gigaFLOPS".. I dont even know what a gigaflop is, and I doubt anybody else does. My point is that when I buy my next mac, I want the option of having a less expensive (and much faster) pentium chip in my mac.. of course I could always buy a PC, but I'd rather not do that </STRONG>

Well given that this is a pretty uninformed post, i won't waste too much time on it, but just to say that if you want Pentium clock speed why not go Wintel? You'd have over 10x the software, near universal access to periphereals/devices, and a far greater degree of "options" in terms of processor choice, case design, and manufacturer than you will ever hope to achieve on a Mac.

Apple is about selling a fully integrated system that works out of the box with minimal frustration on the part of the end-user. If you're looking for the most versatility in off-the-shelf upgrades, processors, and software you buy Windows, not MacOS.

Speed

[OldManMac]

See my sig. It says it all.

[John B. Smith]

oh..

Did anybody watch the Beverly Hillbillies movie on FX?

[Spliff]

LOL. Don't try to change the subject

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by John B. Smith:
<STRONG>oh..

Did anybody watch the Beverly Hillbillies movie on FX?</STRONG>

I think you'd be very happy with Windows XP.

[scarab]

The Pentium 4s were still quite fine with their amazing bandwidth until they started using boards with 133MHz system bus. That basically killed them, didn't it?

The SDRAM support (133fsb) is optional - and is an attempt to expand the market for the P4. Now you have a choice of platforms for your new P4..RDRAM @ 400MHz or SDRAM @ 133MHz. Yes, you will suffer a performance penalty with SDRAM.

The P4 sucks at 2.0GHz - but it scales to 10GHz, where it won't suck.

It's also designed to do exactly the tasks that the Mac platform has historically been known to be good at.

[John B. Smith]

10ghz?? that's scary fast .. when will the powerpc chips become scalable to that speed?

[GetSome681]

Originally posted by John B. Smith:
<STRONG>10ghz?? that's scary fast .. when will the powerpc chips become scalable to that speed?</STRONG>

PowerPC chips will be even faster....right about the time you switch over to the PC world...oops...sorry...please try again!!! Bye Bye

[dvd]

Originally posted by KarlG:
<STRONG>See my sig. It says it all.</STRONG>

this applies to us mac users too huh? We believe wahtever apple gives us. Why dont we use windows?! yes it crashes but not that much, macs crash (pre os x.1) windows is good for average user too. Take watching a regular mpeg or whatever, when u watch it everything in the windoze side is all perfect and doesnt skip frames. My mind is like a cement too so i dont care, i'm sticking to mac even if my 466 is "slower" than my friend's pcs.

Also if p4 is more expensive than why are our macs cost more?

[sodamnregistered]

Originally posted by dvd:
<STRONG>Also if p4 is more expensive than why are our macs cost more?</STRONG>

mmm... could be those stupid-azz cases?

I feel the need whenever possible to rail apple for these cases. Wy did the cube fail? Too expensive. Why? Snobby plastic.

Why will my Superdrive die an early death? I can't put a $30 CD-ROM in my dual 800 'cuz the case is more pretty than it is functional.

Also, there's no competition for Apple hardware. They can charge their captive audience whatever they want and we'll pay.

To be fair, Apple has always been in a tight spot since so few people buy their products. Macs used to justify their their premium with high-quality construction, built-in ethernet and SCSI components.

The construction quality is still pretty high, but the money is wasted on snobby plastic. Inside is a smallish power supply, regular joe ATA drives, and typically a video card that is behind the curve.

Yeah, gigabit is worth about $100, but I've yet to use it, and i can just add it to my PC computers whenever I choose.

If Apple sold a beige steel dual 800 for $2500 and a pretty plastic dual 800 for $3500, the ugly one would outsell the pretty one several times over.

Volume or price premium?

[sodamnregistered]

Originally posted by dvd:
<STRONG>Also if p4 is more expensive than why are our macs cost more?</STRONG>

Well, since I got reamed by the double post, so I'll make up another reason.

Um, macs have always been more expensive, and we'd revolt if they dropped their prices. We're elitist at heart.

[ 10-21-2001: Message edited by: sodamnregistered ]

[Cipher13]

Dunno 'bout that last reason of yours, I wouldn't mind (Ti low end = $5495 here), but as for the rest... hear hear.

[slipjack]

Mhz myth blah blah blah. Whatever. I think what is getting fustrating is Apple's ignorance of what IBM is accomplishing with the G3. I can tell you right now that my Radius Supermac w/50 Mhz bus @ 500 Mhz G3 feels faster than my G4 AGP @350 Mhz. Velocity engine yadda yadda yadda. The G4's are cool 'cause you can dual them, but on a single processor basis the G3 still holds up pretty well.

Apple is now in the unenviable position of having to convince it's users not only of a Mega 'Hurts' Myth, but that faster G3's aren't necessary because G3 Mac's aren't 'top of the line'. 1000 Mhz Imac anyone? Why not? Because it would be faster than a 733 G4 .

Peace.

[Rickag]

My only regret is the time I wasted opening this thread to read it and to type this lame response

[pdot]

if you're going to complain about not being able to use a good x86 chip, at least ask for something better than a p4. P3's are still more popular b/c they're still fast and even faster than the p4 at most thigns and gives you much more bang for the buck. Even better would be an AMD chip.

[Nimisys]

Originally posted by John B. Smith:
<STRONG>Why the hell do we still put up with G3 and g4 processors? Apple needs to give us customers a choice.. I'd much rather have a Mac running at speeds up to 2 ghz than some panty-waste 733mhz thing.. and it'd be better for Apple too, because consumers want raw speed, not "gigaFLOPS".. I dont even know what a gigaflop is, and I doubt anybody else does. My point is that when I buy my next mac, I want the option of having a less expensive (and much faster) pentium chip in my mac.. of course I could always buy a PC, but I'd rather not do that </STRONG>

got a simple question for you then:
1)whats faster P4 2ghz OR AMD 1800+ ?
2) what machine will be faster: OEM (GAteway, Dell, Compaq, ect) OR Custom BUilt (Alienware for example)?

(could include dual 800, but then that would mean i could add dual MP's and that wouldn't be good)

[John B. Smith]

what's up with the apple store? I wonder why it's closed...

[el chupacabra]

to answere the original question....Macs or Mac OS I should say can't run with a Pentium. Their completely incompatible as I know it.

[nana2]

Originally posted by Nimisys:
<STRONG>

got a simple question for you then:
1)whats faster P4 2ghz OR AMD 1800+ ?
2) what machine will be faster: OEM (GAteway, Dell, Compaq, ect) OR Custom BUilt (Alienware for example)?

(could include dual 800, but then that would mean i could add dual MP's and that wouldn't be good)</STRONG>

1) AMD 1800+
2) custom built.

Fastest currently available is dual AMD MP 1800+.

[jo5_h]

Originally posted by sodamnregistered:
I feel the need whenever possible to rail apple for these cases. Wy did the cube fail? Too expensive. Why? Snobby plastic.

when i bought my Cube (which i didn't find very expensive, actually), the case was one of the main reasons i bought it. this thing is one of the sexiest pieces of hardware around. i think Apple is just ahead of the curve on case design, and as a computer becomes something that's more prominent in the home -- something found in the living room rather than the office, for instance -- ppl will want their machine to look nicer than some beige monstrosity, or even the ugly boxen that Dell & Gateway are selling at the moment. custom plastics will become cheaper in time, but for now you're paying a bit of a premium for a machine that's actually pleasant to look at.

anyway, it should be plain to everyone that if all you want is cheap and powerful, buy an AMD/Windows system. if you want a little style w/ your power, buy Apple.

[BannanaFiend]

Originally posted by slipjack:
<STRONG>Mhz myth blah blah blah. Whatever. I think what is getting fustrating is Apple's ignorance of what IBM is accomplishing with the G3. I can tell you right now that my Radius Supermac w/50 Mhz bus @ 500 Mhz G3 feels faster than my G4 AGP @350 Mhz. Velocity engine yadda yadda yadda. The G4's are cool 'cause you can dual them, but on a single processor basis the G3 still holds up pretty well.

Apple is now in the unenviable position of having to convince it's users not only of a Mega 'Hurts' Myth, but that faster G3's aren't necessary because G3 Mac's aren't 'top of the line'. 1000 Mhz Imac anyone? Why not? Because it would be faster than a 733 G4 .

Peace. </STRONG>

I love the way that people don't realize the 1 ghz g3 wont be out till like January, only a little before apple hopes to have the g5 out, which would still be faster ( if it happens to work out this way, who knows? ). As for now, the g4 *is* faster than ibm's g3's, so don't blame apple for going with the g4 (versus the g3)until there is reason to.

[BannanaFiend]

wow how did i...

[ 10-21-2001: Message edited by: BannanaFiend ]

[John B. Smith]

The Genetive Case is -I, -E, -IS
The Genetive Plural is -arum, -orum, -isum

am I wrong?

The Accusative Case is -am, -as, -at, I think

[neutrino23]

Originally posted by John B. Smith:
<STRONG>... I'd much rather have a Mac running at speeds up to 2 ghz than some panty-waste 733mhz thing.. and it'd be better for Apple too, because consumers want raw speed, not "gigaFLOPS".. I dont even know what a gigaflop is</STRONG>

This is classic. I love the "consumers want raw speed, not "gigaFLOPS"". It's like saying, I want a car with an engine that revs really high, who cares about torque and mph? Give me rpm!

who cares if you think the pentium 4 is crappy chip?? obviously your completely wrong, otherwise the g4 would be the most widely used chip by regular consumers and professionals alike

Dude,

I drive a Daimler 55 AMG. Is it the most widely owned car ? NO
Is it one of the fastest and best cars around ? YES

FYI, as with most consumer products, the best is owned by a few, and not vice versa.

[CityGuy2003]

a gigaflop is one billion floating point operations per second. theoretically, when maxed out, the G4 should reach 11.8 gigalops or 11.8 billion floating point operations per second. what makes this important is that the definition of a "supercomputer" is one that can achieve one billion floating point operations per second. the G4 is essentially 11 supercomputers on a chip.

megahertz is a valid point when purshasing a machine, but a moot point when chip architecture is taken into account. all hertz is is the frequency . if a chip sucks it doesnt matter how high its hertz is, it will still suck.

if you want incredible megahertz go buy a P4 chip...and enjoy...but your not going to get much for your money

[slipjack]

Originally posted by BannanaFiend:
<STRONG>

I love the way that people don't realize the 1 ghz g3 wont be out till like January, only a little before apple hopes to have the g5 out, which would still be faster ( if it happens to work out this way, who knows? ). As for now, the g4 *is* faster than ibm's g3's, so don't blame apple for going with the g4 (versus the g3)until there is reason to.</STRONG>

Um, actually the G3 is faster, Mhz over Mhz. Only Velocity Engine enabled software gets a boost. So, you could could lose the Altivec and gain 200Mhz and you'd be better off in the end for ALL applications all the time.

And I do realize that the 1 gig g3 is perhaps not here yet, but the G3 was running at 800+ when the G4 was still stuck in 500 land. And we keep loosing efficiency with the G4 as they step it up because they keep having to extend the pipeline to get those xtra htz. Triple reply this.

[BannanaFiend]

Originally posted by slipjack:
<STRONG>


Um, actually the G3 is faster, Mhz over Mhz. Only Velocity Engine enabled software gets a boost. So, you could could lose the Altivec and gain 200Mhz and you'd be better off in the end for ALL applications all the time.

And I do realize that the 1 gig g3 is perhaps not here yet, but the G3 was running at 800+ when the G4 was still stuck in 500 land. And we keep loosing efficiency with the G4 as they step it up because they keep having to extend the pipeline to get those xtra htz. Triple reply this. </STRONG>

Ok...
1) Could you cite where you saw these speed comparisons between the g3 and g4, as I'd be interested to see them.

2) Where exactly have you seen this 800 mhz g3? The highest I could find on IBM's Power PC page was 700 mhz. As far as I know, this is the height of the g3 at the current time.

3) Though I cannot say for sure about the current g3's, I remember that the original ones were not capable of running in multiple processor configurations. If this is the case with the current g3's, then it would be a severe limitation on the high end model(s). If this has changed in the recent g3 revisions, then by all means correct me on this one.

4) As for the triple post, well maybe I'm a bit too fond of the browser back button. One would think that the post script could be a little smarter about this. Oh well. I'll have to be more careful.

Ta.

[ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: BannanaFiend ]

[ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: BannanaFiend ]

[bluedog]

Lemme post this question while its close to on-topic.

How much would a dual1.8GHz Athlon cost? With a Gforce3? and 1.5GB RAM?

Hot much does a dual 800mHz G4 PowerMac cost? With a Gforce3? and 1.5GB RAM?

[Scotttheking]

Originally posted by bluedog:
<STRONG>Lemme post this question while its close to on-topic.

How much would a dual1.8GHz Athlon cost? With a Gforce3? and 1.5GB RAM?

Hot much does a dual 800mHz G4 PowerMac cost? With a Gforce3? and 1.5GB RAM?</STRONG>

Well, first you have to find two Athlons that you can overclock to 1.8GHz, then you need to take into account the massive cooling involved,....

Lets see, for the processors, $302 each for the 1.53GHz ones. $200 for the motherboard. I'll spec the rest out another time, those are the prices I know right now.

[Nimisys]

Originally posted by Scotttheking:
<STRONG>

Well, first you have to find two Athlons that you can overclock to 1.8GHz, then you need to take into account the massive cooling involved,....

Lets see, for the processors, $302 each for the 1.53GHz ones. $200 for the motherboard. I'll spec the rest out another time, those are the prices I know right now.</STRONG>

i'll pick up where you left off...
gf3: what flavor ti200, GF3(old) Ti500.. your looking at 175 to 250 to 350 depending on the flavor

1.5gb ram: 60-75$$ for pc2100.. you can;t get pc2400 sticks in 512 format yet... either way under 250 but more than 150

athlon xp 1800+ run 205 now on price watch, the tyan tiger (aka athlon dual lite) runs about 200

so to answer your question bare minumm dually setup would be : 2x205, 1x200, 1x175, 3x70 = 995 thats with a ti200... with a ti500 it would be 1170. but thats also with highest end cpu... you would do probably just as well running dual 1.4MP's at 149 each and benefit form them, being desinged and optimized for dually... that price range would be 875-1060

[bluedog]

Thanks for the replies.

In all, those are COMPELLING reasons to buy these machines for their computing power (dual athlons) in a renderfarm, but for a user's machine I'd still opt for MacOSX anyday.

Perhaps I'll build one-such machine. Does anyone know how difficult it is to get linux to run on these (self-compiling the kernel? or are they available in distros)?

I'll have to see if I get a holiday bonus and how big it is!

[ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: bluedog ]

[John B. Smith]

I drive a Daimler 55 AMG. Is it the most widely owned car ? NO
Is it one of the fastest and best cars around ? YES

FYI, as with most consumer products, the best is owned by a few, and not vice versa.

The man owns an old car! So he MUST be the final authority on the subject! The Car analogy (Macs are like BMW's, and PC's are the inferior mainstream cars) is baloney... if Macs really are the superior product, then how come people don't want them? The whole elitist idea that macs are for an englightened few just doesn't fly.. macs can't be equivalent to fine autobmobiles, because if they were, then people everywhere would know that Macs were superior.. but instead, Macs are treated like the bizarre red-headed stepchild

[jbell]

Originally posted by John B. Smith:
<STRONG>
The Car analogy (Macs are like BMW's, and PC's are the inferior mainstream cars) is baloney... if Macs really are the superior product, then how come people don't want them? The whole elitist idea that macs are for an englightened few just doesn't fly.. macs can't be equivalent to fine autobmobiles, because if they were, then people everywhere would know that Macs were superior.. but instead, Macs are treated like the bizarre red-headed stepchild</STRONG>

I heartily disagree. Actually, I think Macs are like Porsches or Ferraris and PCs are like hot rods or muscle cars. Have you ever used a Mac? If you did, I don't think you've used it enough to be able to tell the difference between PCs and Macs. This debate of PCs and Intels vs. Macs and PowerPCs is always neverending. If you're convinced that PCs are better than Macs, then go buy yourself a PC.

IMHO, I do not want to see an Intel or AMD chip in a Mac just for the sake of Mhz! It's like putting a Ford or Chevy engine from a muscle car into a Porsche. Replacing PowerPCs with Intels or AMDs will kill off Apple hardware division and leaves R&D only into OS and having OS run on ugly beige PCs. Basically, it boils down to Apple philosophy of being innovative and different. Hence, I don't want a car that looks and runs like everyone else's!

About the G4s with Altivec touting Gigaflops, it's unfortunate that there are not many software titles available that are optimized with Altivec technology possibly due to focus on Mac OS X and in this regard, fair comparisons with software running on Wintels are limited. We probably get mind-blowing results if every software on a Mac G4 were written to use the Altivec.

Here's a thought: why not design the fastest processor with the lowest Mhz possible? Remember the digital bit wars on the CD players - it was thought that if there were more bits, the better the sound would be? And someone came out with a single bit CD player that performed as well or better? A Mhz is a function of clock frequency, not amount of work performed. Perhaps, you should see Mhz Myth video again as a refresher.

[John B. Smith]

ok... either way, I'll still buy whatever stuff apple churns out, even though I am rather disappointed by their dogmatic approach of business.. I think apple would have a big load lifted off of their shoulders if they didn't have to constantly worry about the status (or lack thereof) of the PowerPC processors

Originally posted by Scotttheking:
<STRONG>

Well, first you have to find two Athlons that you can overclock to 1.8GHz, then you need to take into account the massive cooling involved,....

Lets see, for the processors, $302 each for the 1.53GHz ones. $200 for the motherboard. I'll spec the rest out another time, those are the prices I know right now.</STRONG>

Most of the OC of AthlonsXP's I've seen use the FSB. The Tyan MB don't let you change it much, they top out at 133. I guess you could try to use the L-bridges or Golden-sockets, but that has it's own problems. . .

As for the 'massive cooling,' I'd use water. Two water blocks and the rest of the part will set you back a bit over $300. The best part with water is your room wont sound like an airport. The worst that could happen with water cooling is you get a leak of you pump dies.

I'd say a dual 1.53 AthlonMP box with win2000 would set you back $1,500 or so.

cheers,

alex

Originally posted by Nimisys:
<STRONG>


1.5gb ram: 60-75$$ for pc2100.. you can;t get pc2400 sticks in 512 format yet... either way under 250 but more than 150

athlon xp 1800+ run 205 now on price watch, the tyan tiger (aka athlon dual lite) runs about 200
</STRONG>

Your ram price is wrong. The Tyan needs registered DDR. Getting PC2400 won't help you since you can't overclock the FSB on the Tyan. Back to the Ram prices, you can get 512 Corsair value for $107. If you want to fill all 4 slots, make sure you get singe bank ram since the 760 can only address 6 banks of ram.

cheers,

alex

Originally posted by &lt;Dual Athlon&gt;:
<STRONG>

Your ram price is wrong. The Tyan needs registered DDR. Getting PC2400 won't help you since you can't overclock the FSB on the Tyan......
cheers,

alex</STRONG>

you can overclock the FSB a little bit&gt; http://www.overclockers-network.com/...md/dualamd.htm

Originally posted by &lt;felony&gt;:
<STRONG>

you can overclock the FSB a little bit&gt; http://www.overclockers-network.com/...md/dualamd.htm</STRONG>

No, that is wrong. The Thunder and Tiger both use the ICS9248-64 Clock generator. See page 3, the chip only has 4 bus speeds, 90, 100, 120, and 133.3. Since this board came out, people have made claims how they found the magic jumper combo to over-clock, but never post the jumper combo. The thing about this board that is odd is that you have 4 jumpers with 81 combos, but only need two(J52,J53) to set the bus speed.

cheers,

alex

[Nebrie]

Originally posted by John B. Smith:
<STRONG>The man owns an old car! So he MUST be the final authority on the subject! The Car analogy (Macs are like BMW's, and PC's are the inferior mainstream cars) is baloney... if Macs really are the superior product, then how come people don't want them? The whole elitist idea that macs are for an englightened few just doesn't fly.. macs can't be equivalent to fine autobmobiles, because if they were, then people everywhere would know that Macs were superior.. but instead, Macs are treated like the bizarre red-headed stepchild</STRONG>

Well, that's because 'Macs vs PCs' is way more complicated than cars. You won't understand it _at all_ until you understand the history behind it, and you bet it flies.

Okay, I'll add my two cents to this.

1) I don't think "John B. Smith"'s question was serious. Call me an optimist, but I don't think anyone is really that dumb. Rather, I'd guess he's looking for attention or possibly trying to spark a chip war debate.

2) BannanaFiend wrote:
"I love the way that people don't realize the 1 ghz g3 wont be out till like January, only a little before apple hopes to have the g5 out, which would still be faster ( if it happens to work out this way, who knows? ). As for now, the g4 *is* faster than ibm's g3's, so don't blame apple for going with the g4 (versus the g3)until there is reason to."

Exactly! SlipJack has made some intelligent posts in the past. However, I have to disagree with his line of thinking here. I've heard similar rumblings from others on this topic as well. I think there are a few things to consider here. For starters, IBM has pre-announced the availability of the 1GHZ G3, just as they did A LONG TIME AGO with the 700mhz G3. We should also note that even though the 700mhz iMac was announced in July, it's only been shipping for a few weeks now! Regardless of that, I challenge anyone that thinks Apple made a mistake going with the G4 to name one moment in history when a faster G3 was available (even without Altivec). It never happened. Pre-announcements of chip availability doesn't count.

SlipJack wrote:
"And I do realize that the 1 gig g3 is perhaps not here yet, but the G3 was running at 800+ when the G4 was still stuck in 500 land. And we keep loosing efficiency with the G4 as they step it up because they keep having to extend the pipeline to get those xtra htz."

Well, considering the G3 is STILL not running at 800mhz, I don't think we need to go into this any further. Again, if you doubt this, please provide a link where I can find an 800mhz G3. As for the inefficiency of the G4, yes, the G4 did increase the instruction pipeline. However, unlike the P4, additional Int and Altivec units were added. It is true that FP is not as efficient in the 7450 as it was in the 7400. Benchmarks show that performance does scale linearly with mhz between the 7400 and 7450 except for FP tasks. However, considering the G4 already had a more powerful FP unit than the G3, the longer pipeline isn't a big deal.

3) neutrino23 wrote:
"This is classic. I love the "consumers want raw speed, not "gigaFLOPS"". It's like saying, I want a car with an engine that revs really high, who cares about torque and mph? Give me rpm!"

Yeah, like I said, nobody can really be this dumb. Anyway, I use a similar analogy to help people understand the complexites of chip architecture. To some people, they don't have enough of a base knowledge about chip architecture to actually explain why it's faster. To these types of people, it's easier to think of terms of rpms, gears, and how it relates to the end result (mph, torque, etc.).

4) At the end of the day, the bottom line is which operating system you prefer. I use Windows 2000 Pro for work and some gaming, Mac OS for graphics/web/DV/hobby stuff, and various flavors of Unix throughout the day. As long as Apple stays competetive in their core markets, they have nothing to worry about. The G4 was a speed deamon compared to the 600mhz PIIIs when it was introduced. It's no speed deamon by todays standards, however, it still manages to be competitive in Apple's core markets. In January, we should have &gt; 1GHZ Apollo based G4s and 1Ghz G3. By summer, the G5 should be available. Likewise, unlike that 18month performance drought Apple went through, the future still looks promising.

Steve

[Peter753]

I hear the P4 2ghz is only marginaly faster than the 867mhz G4. It wont be long till Apple is back in the lead. They recently got IBM to start making Chips so hopfully this will be the turn around.

[Kristoff]

The whole premis of this thread is fricking retarded.

My Dodge Neon redlines at 6800 RPM. The Dodge Viper redlines at 5200 RPM. That means my Neon is faster than a Viper! I just saved $40000



STOP TROLLING AND GO PLAY WITH YOUR PLAYSKOOL DESIGNED UI AND BSODing KERNEL YOU WINDOWS XP HUMPING FOOL!