[miccocan]

hi, i am currenty using a intel centrino 1.3 laptop with 512mb ram, i found the system very slow doing photoshop stuff. So i looked at some of the P4 HT system (custom build), 3.0ghz, 80gb, ati x600, 512mb dual ddr for $800cdn include tax. However a powermac single 1.8 cost $2200 include tax, almost the same config. but 3x the price!! i am thinking about getting a powermac because my school use Mac.

for photoshop work do they have similar performance? if you are me will you spend 3x the money for a mac?

[polendo]

The PC you described is a great setup for the price. I think the PC would do a much better job at photoshop considering the std video card that comes with the SP 1.8 G5

regards

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by polendo:
The PC you described is a great setup for the price. I think the PC would do a much better job at photoshop considering the std video card that comes with the SP 1.8 G5

regards

The video card has no effect on Photoshop performance.

[polendo]

Originally posted by Cadaver:
The video card has no effect on Photoshop performance.

"The higher the resolution, the greater the number of individual pixels that have to be refreshed (updated) to change the screen's appearance. The greater the color depth (the number of different colors an individual pixel is capable of displaying), the more information is required for each pixel. The greater these two requirements, the higher the demands on the computer's video card. There are several different chip sets (technologies) available. If you have a choice when ordering or designing a system, remember that Photoshop is primarily a 2D graphics program. If you also work with digital video, 3D, or games, you might want to make those requirements your priority.


Perhaps more important than the chip set is the amount of VRAM. VRAM is memory built into the video card for the purposes of speeding onscreen performance. Generally speaking, more is better. Ensure that your chosen video card has enough VRAM to power your monitor of choice at the required resolution and color depth.


If you have multiple video cards (or a dual card), you can use multiple monitors with Photoshop. Two or more monitors can be set up to serve as one extended screen. Photoshop (and other programs) enables you to use the entire space of multiple monitors as one large work area. Multiple monitors are set up and controlled through the operating system."

taken from :
http://www.quepublishing.com/article...30656&seqNum=2

[Scotttheking]

Originally posted by polendo:
"The higher the resolution, the greater the number of individual pixels that have to be refreshed (updated) to change the screen's appearance. The greater the color depth (the number of different colors an individual pixel is capable of displaying), the more information is required for each pixel. The greater these two requirements, the higher the demands on the computer's video card. There are several different chip sets (technologies) available. If you have a choice when ordering or designing a system, remember that Photoshop is primarily a 2D graphics program. If you also work with digital video, 3D, or games, you might want to make those requirements your priority.


Perhaps more important than the chip set is the amount of VRAM. VRAM is memory built into the video card for the purposes of speeding onscreen performance. Generally speaking, more is better. Ensure that your chosen video card has enough VRAM to power your monitor of choice at the required resolution and color depth.


If you have multiple video cards (or a dual card), you can use multiple monitors with Photoshop. Two or more monitors can be set up to serve as one extended screen. Photoshop (and other programs) enables you to use the entire space of multiple monitors as one large work area. Multiple monitors are set up and controlled through the operating system."

taken from :
http://www.quepublishing.com/article...30656&seqNum=2

Not going to matter for 2D.


The P4 is going to beat the crap out of the G5 in performance.

[EdipisReks]

get the P4, unless you want a mac specifically.

[miccocan]

hi thank you all
i was surprised you guys told me to get the P4 instead. From the apple website they claim that a 1.8sp is 20% faster than a 3.4 P4 Dell using Photoshop CS, so you think in real life the P4 with the dual DDR memory will be faster?

[xe0]

Originally posted by Scotttheking:
Not going to matter for 2D.
The P4 is going to beat the crap out of the G5 in performance.

Originally posted by miccocan:
hi thank you all
i was surprised you guys told me to get the P4 instead. From the apple website they claim that a 1.8sp is 20% faster than a 3.4 P4 Dell using Photoshop CS, so you think in real life the P4 with the dual DDR memory will be faster?

Not really. The P4 system would be a great Game performer due to the video card, but for Photoshop tasks either system would be adequate.

Depending on what your doing with Photoshop I would recommend the Mac due to OSX tremendous multitasking, Font versatility, Expos� and disk performance.

[Waragainstsleep]

What OS are you going to use on the P4? Installing XP on a self build can be a traumatic experience (especially if you didn't pay for XP!).

Go for the Mac if you want to reduce the chances of losing your work.

[Scotttheking]

Originally posted by miccocan:
hi thank you all
i was surprised you guys told me to get the P4 instead. From the apple website they claim that a 1.8sp is 20% faster than a 3.4 P4 Dell using Photoshop CS, so you think in real life the P4 with the dual DDR memory will be faster?

Do you honestly think Apple would ever post a benchmark they lose?
Not having looked at the tests, my guess is they find one filter that's faster, and make that look like 'photoshop'.
Also keep in mind cost when you decide what to buy. There are reasons other than raw performance to get one system over the other, but you didn't ask about them.
I personally build all my desktops, and I'm a straight Athlon person, but I'm not sure if the highest end Athlon currently beats the highest end P4 in raw performance.

[EdipisReks]

the highest end Athlon easily beats the highest end P4 in raw performance.

[UnixMac]

software optimized for the G5 will run about as fast as a P4 3.0 in many cases... but most software isn't really optimized for G5, but rather just generic mac... over all the P4 will be faster, but if you trick out the Mac with a lot of RAM (As the P4 maxes out at 2gb) and a good graphics card (at least the ATI 9600).. then you have a great computer that is both very fast and runs OS X... the biggest advantage of a Mac is OS X... not the G5.

[tonywong]

Originally posted by miccocan:
hi, i am currenty using a intel centrino 1.3 laptop with 512mb ram, i found the system very slow doing photoshop stuff. So i looked at some of the P4 HT system (custom build), 3.0ghz, 80gb, ati x600, 512mb dual ddr for $800cdn include tax. However a powermac single 1.8 cost $2200 include tax, almost the same config. but 3x the price!! i am thinking about getting a powermac because my school use Mac.

for photoshop work do they have similar performance? if you are me will you spend 3x the money for a mac?

I'm not sure if you're getting the advice that you're seeking so far. The best thing to do is to go down to your Mac dealer and ask to run a test of files that you work with typically on the G5/1.8, then compare it with the P4/3.0.

In many ways Photoshop does not seem to be optimized for Windows/x86, as you seem to be finding. Seeing as you have 512MB of RAM, I'd guess you are either working with largish files or are a web developer who's got a lot of apps open at the same time. If you are the former, I would try a PC with maximum RAM if you are on a budget (since you mentioned school, I will assume you are a full-time student). The P4 system you mentioned sounds like a good deal. HT doesn't affect 99% of the applications out there unless you're running multiple apps.

However, if you are a working professional, the PowerMac may be a better buy, especially if you get 2GB+ of RAM (and not from apple!). I would not recommend more than 2GB, as I don't think PS can address more than that (or any other mac application currently). Going higher would only benefit multiple applications running at the same time.

The one big creative reason for using the Mac is that Photoshop seems to be optimized better on the Mac, at dialog boxes for previews etc.

In many PS benchmarks, the total times are only representative of the time that is recorded from hitting the OK button on a dialog box until the image is refreshed.

On the Windows version of PS, many people have noted annoying pauses from the choosing of the filter/command until the dialog box displays. I don't know if this was addressed in CS, but < version7 PS x86 exhibits these issues. I don't know if AMD architecture machines exhibit this problem either. It could be the x86 architecture lacking enough registers, but the end issue is that annoying delays occur on the PC version of Photoshop that can interrupt creative/work flow. I would also seriously look at Athlon powered machines instead of Pentium 4 powered machines as well.

Apple really plays on this in their demonstrations and benchmarks, so I would guess what they show is a worst case demo of the PC/PS issue. I think this was shown by Steve Jobs in the intro of the G5 last year when it went head to head vs. a 3GHz P4 (Pixar movie poster photoshop script).

Bottom line is, is that if you're a working professional who generates cash from a machine, a more expensive tool may allow you to increase your revenues, and the cost of the tool is immaterial while students are looking to get in the door for the lowest price.

As an aside, generally PCs depreciate heavily while macs do not. So your PC would not be worth much after a year, while the Mac may retain up to 85% of it's value (for resale), depending on model and configuration.

Don't forget to factor in the cost of a new CS license for the Mac if you switch platforms, and any other applications you use (like office), although students may get them for little to no cost.

Photoshop work is generally unaffected by the video card, although if you are getting into video/compositing work, a fast GPU is becoming critically important on the Mac (and the Mac is better at video work hands down). Modern video cards are more than fast enough for 2D work.

Good luck in your decision.

[miccocan]

thanks
sounds like mac might be better for me after considering resell value (my girlfriend pay $1000 for a P4 1.7 system 2 years ago, and when she switch to laptop last year, the 800 mhz FSB P4 introduced and no body wants the older P4, not even $350)

software is not a problem, my teacher always lend out software to students

i will get the dual processor if i am in the USA now, apple.com are selling the dual 1.8 for 1699, thats less than $2100 cdn, but in canada apple.ca there are no special and promotion at all. i have to pay $2800 for the dual 1.8 even after edu. discount. I hope someone can help me get one from USA!!

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by miccocan:
thanks
sounds like mac might be better for me after considering resell value (my girlfriend pay $1000 for a P4 1.7 system 2 years ago, and when she switch to laptop last year, the 800 mhz FSB P4 introduced and no body wants the older P4, not even $350)

software is not a problem, my teacher always lend out software to students

i will get the dual processor if i am in the USA now, apple.com are selling the dual 1.8 for 1699, thats less than $2100 cdn, but in canada apple.ca there are no special and promotion at all. i have to pay $2800 for the dual 1.8 even after edu. discount. I hope someone can help me get one from USA!!

If you're in Toronto like your profile says, you're about 5 hours from the Apple Store in either Novi, MI or Troy, MI. That's a doable drive...

[macaddict0001]

hyperthreading is crap

all it does is improve multithreading(which the p4 sucks at)
mac's have way better multithreading, the amd 64 has good multithreading also.

[NordicMan]

Apple does not just use one filter for its tests, although it does obviously make what it can of the results, talking about some filters.

The thing that a lot of photographers and desktop people like about Apple is that colours are more truly represented in working for clients. Things just work better and more smoothly, is what more than one professional finds. If there are pros who think differently, then they are free to say that, perhaps something has changed.

John Warnock one time said 2 or 3 years ago that Apple has done study in the science of colour. "Microsoft just doesn't get it." There you have it, TechTV interview, with a founder of Adobe.

It is in the OS, and the fact that Photoshop is optimised for OS X on the hardware. Why do so many graphics arts departments and bureaus use Macs for this kind of work? It is not because G4s were beating time on intel/amd chips generally.

[pliny]

i think color and objects look better on a mac; video, all the visuual stuff.

don't know that a p4 will spank a G5 on photoshop. and then you have all the nice apple apps that are made for the mac and spiffed for the G5.

and all the font management stuff is a plus.

[AdvocateUK]

Forgive me if I'm repeating anything here (I read the first few posts and just had to reply without reading more) but I do feel I speak with some experience.

For years I was PC only until I had what I thought was my dream pc, 3Ghz P4 with HT, 1gig Corsair mem, Radeon 9700 Pro, Soundblaster Audigy Platinum etc etc. All brand gear, built by me and with XP installed. It was a beast.

Then I bought an iBook...from that moment on I wanted a desktop Mac..so...fast forward past the sale of the iBook to me purchasing a rev A single 1.8 G5. In day to day use this machine felt faster than my "dream pc" using Photoshop, FCP, Safari...just everything.

The result?

I just sold my "dream PC" to buy my wife an iBook for Christmas. I gave her the iBook early (degree to finish and never being able to get on the PM because of me) and she also loves the Mac experience. "It never crashes"......oh don't I just know it

Since buying my Mac I have "switched" a couple of people...most noticeably two of the Doctors I work with (I'm an A+E or ER nurse). One surgeon who has bought a (beautiful) 15" PB and an ER Dr who has just received his 20" iMac and iBook (for the wife )

I also have at least three people who will imminently be buying Macs.

Go for the G5, you won't regret it.

[EDIT] Just reread my initial post and feel I didn't really clarify myself enough. If you are using Photoshop for a living, or even to get you through a college course then you need a Mac. These things just never crash, seriously. I've had the G5 for a litle over a year now and it has never crashed once. Yes, individual apps crash (PS has never crashed on me btw) but they NEVER take the whole machine down, at least not in my experience. With the PC and WinXP I was forever troubleshooting either an issue which would cause the machine to crash/lock up or an issue which caused a piece of software to malfunction/crash. It was neverending. The G5 has even done wonders for my marriage as I'm less stressed because I'm not constantly troubleshooting and am spending far more time with my beloved. "I hardly ever hear you whingeing about this new computer" hehe.

My new mission in life is to get everyone I know using a Mac. That way I won't be the "free tech support" that I have been,

P.S. If you do get a PM please do keep us up to date with how you are getting on

[/EDIT]

[NYK Ace]

Originally posted by Cadaver:
If you're in Toronto like your profile says, you're about 5 hours from the Apple Store in either Novi, MI or Troy, MI. That's a doable drive...

hes only 2 hours from the apple store in buffalo, ny

[Nephron]

Originally posted by Cadaver:
If you're in Toronto like your profile says, you're about 5 hours from the Apple Store in either Novi, MI or Troy, MI. That's a doable drive...

If you are in Toronto, the store in Buffalo is much closer than the ones in Michigan.
Cheers!

[NYK Ace]

Originally posted by Nephron:
If you are in Toronto, the store in Buffalo is much closer than the ones in Michigan.
Cheers!

jinx!

[CincyGamer]

With Tiger, there are over 80 filters that are rendered realtime.
P4 cant do this. Look at Core Image on the Tiger preview site on apple.com

[i_wolf]

On more modern optimized macintosh native applications written for the architecture (similar to the way many ported mac apps were written and optimized for the x86 processors), the G5 should blow away the competition in terms of performance. In a few of the apps that have hinted at its potential it really does shine. motion, FCP and a few others spring to mind.

[mbryda]

Buy the Mac. The P4 is a POS CPU (if you must buy PC, Athlon64 is a better deal)....

That being said, I still manipulate 6MP RAW files on my G4 iMac @ 800 Mhz with 512MB RAM just fine. This is using PSE 3.0.

It seems about as fast as this IBM A31p 2.0Ghz Peee4 with 1GB RAM.

I only wish the iMac could drive an external monitor @ greater than 1024x768.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by mbryda:
Buy the Mac. The P4 is a POS CPU (if you must buy PC, Athlon64 is a better deal)....

The P4 is a very good CPU. I'd rather have the Mac too, but stop spreading FUD about the P4.

[Scotttheking]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
The P4 is a very good CPU. I'd rather have the Mac too, but stop spreading FUD about the P4.

HUH? The Athlon64 is generally a better CPU and squarely beats the P4 in the bang/buck and bang/watt categories. The P4 is a dead end and horribly inefficient.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Scotttheking:
HUH? The Athlon64 is generally a better CPU. The P4 is a dead end and horribly inefficient.

It may be close to being a dead end as an architecture, but the 3.6 GHz P4 exists today and it's damn fast. The Athlon64 4000+ is faster in many tests, but the 3.6 GHz P4 is also very fast, and sometimes is the leader of the pack too. In terms of this thread, however, both the Athlon64 4000+ and the P4 3.6 are significantly faster than a single G5 2.5 overall. Oh and the P4 3.8 GHz should be available soon.

The Power Mac G5 overall is a great box, especially in Photoshop, but to say the P4 is a lousy CPU is just fanboyism.

BTW, at PriceWatch, the P4 3.6 is $425. The Athlon64 4000+ is $680.

[Scotttheking]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
to say the P4 is a lousy CPU is just fanboyism.

It is a lousy CPU. It's got a low IPC and horrible thermal characteristics. The Athlon 64 is over 1GHz slower yet generally outperforms the 3.6 P4.
I'm not saying it has no uses, but to state that it's a "very good CPU" is ludicrous.

[Lateralus]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
It may be close to being a dead end as an architecture, but the 3.6 GHz P4 exists today and it's damn fast. The Athlon64 4000+ is faster in many tests, but the 3.6 GHz P4 is also very fast, and sometimes is the leader of the pack too. In terms of this thread, however, both the Athlon64 4000+ and the P4 3.6 are significantly faster than a single G5 2.5 overall. Oh and the P4 3.8 GHz should be available soon.

The Power Mac G5 overall is a great box, especially in Photoshop, but to say the P4 is a lousy CPU is just fanboyism.

BTW, at PriceWatch, the P4 3.6 is $425. The Athlon64 4000+ is $680.

[macaddict0001]

The athlon 64 is a great chip and it outperforms the p4 in gaming which is one of the main uses for a fast chip anyway.

[power142]

Regardless of which cpu is good/bad/ugly, neither Athlon64 or P4 are available in dual processor configurations - you have to pay significantly more money for Opteron and Xeon machines, even from Dell (unless you go for a lowly 2.8GHz Xeon).

At the low-end, there's no doubt that a cheap 3.0GHz P4 will apply Photoshop effects faster than a single 1.8GHz G5. Which is the better machine to use is subjective.... to some, it might be worth the extra money, to others, it wouldn't.

[Simon]

[deleted, it's not worth it]

[tonywong]

From last year's PC Magazine review of the PowerMac G5/2.0DP
(http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1274230,00.asp)

Our Windows system was a Dell Precision 650 workstation with dual 3.06-GHz Intel Xeon processors...

Adobe Photoshop. Photoshop is a popular image editing program used extensively on both OSes. We tested using version 7.01, the latest available for both Windows and Macintosh, and we used Adobe's G5 Processor plug-in update for Mac OS X, which lets the program take advantage of the system's additional memory and special instructions. We started with a 59.5 MB test image, but many operations completed too quickly to time, so we quadrupled the size to 238MB.

At these larger image sizes, although the Wintel test times were quite good, both the G4 and G5 computers proved more adept at distort functions like wave and pinch. Moreover, on the Windows system, loading the controls often took a minute or more. If these times are added back to the actual test times, both Macintosh computers would have clearly outperformed the Windows-based computer.

[Waragainstsleep]

A P4 or an AMD64 might well be more than a match for a single 2.5GHz G5, but who out there is using a SINGLE 2.5? Not many people.
Yes, in theory two P4s/AMDs would be even better than two G5s, but dual socket x86 motherboards are not the most common thing in the world, and I wouldn't even begin to trust windows to run one properly anyway.

[Simon]

Originally posted by Waragainstsleep:
Yes, in theory two P4s/AMDs would be even better than two G5s, but dual socket x86 motherboards are not the most common thing in the world

And they only take Xeons, not P4s (they don't do SMP). The Xeon does SMP, but you can't buy 3.6 or 3.8GHz Xeons. Plus, Xeons are very expensive.

[deboerjo]

Originally posted by Simon:
And they only take Xeons, not P4s (they don't do SMP). The Xeon does SMP, but you can't buy 3.6 or 3.8GHz Xeons. Plus, Xeons are very expensive.

Nonesense, dual-socket Opteron (server version of the Athlon64) boards are not only easy to come by from MSI or Tyan, Opteron processors are cheap. My local Linux Users Group built a dual-processor Opteron server with RAID on a $900 budget (with members donating some of the minor parts, such as video card, floppy, and CD-ROM).

[Simon]

Read again. I was talking about P4s and Xeons, not the Opteron. I know very well that the Opteron does SMP, we use them that way every day here at our lab.

[deboerjo]

Originally posted by Simon:
Read again. I was talking about P4s and Xeons, not the Opteron. I know very well that the Opteron does SMP, we use them that way every day here at our lab.

Read Waragainstsleep's post again. he's talking about x86 motherboards and you said "They only run Xeons". I was pointing out that that isn't true; there are many other x86 dual-processor platforms, first and foremost Opteron.

I was also replying not just to you, but to Waragainstsleep and power142, who suggest that dual-processor x86 systems are extremely expensive. I've got a Linux Users Group and a few friends who have dual-proc workstations for less than the cost of an iMac.

[pliny]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
The Power Mac G5 overall is a great box, especially in Photoshop, but to say the P4 is a lousy CPU is just fanboyism.

So what?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Lateralus:

Heh. You can't argue with facts then?

Originally posted by Scotttheking:
It is a lousy CPU. It's got a low IPC and horrible thermal characteristics. The Athlon 64 is over 1GHz slower yet generally outperforms the 3.6 P4.
I'm not saying it has no uses, but to state that it's a "very good CPU" is ludicrous.

It's not ludicrous, for obvious reasons. It's fast and it's available, and it's actually cheaper than the fastest Athlon64 chips. It's definitely not perfect though.

And it irrelevant that the Athlon64 is over 1 GHz slower, since it was BUILT to be more efficient per GHz. The P4 OTOH, was BUILT to clock high. It's no surprise that although the Athlon64 is very efficient, it can't get anywhere close to even 3 GHz at this point. The G5's current design is in the same boat, but the G5 is less efficient than the Athlon64 in terms of performance/GHz.

I am not saying I would buy a P4. I'd buy a Mac first. However, if I was buying a PC, I'd strongly consider the Athlon64, but I would not rule out the P4 purely on the reasons provided in this thread. Lots of large companies sell good and quiet P4 machines, and back them up with an excellent warranty. Less companies do that with the Athlon64, although the numbers are increasing.

Originally posted by pliny:
So what?

[pliny]

tonywong's post above about the pc lab test between the dual xeon and the dual 2.0 photoshop is pretty interesting, seems the G5 spankededed the xeon.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
The P4 is a very good CPU. I'd rather have the Mac too, but stop spreading FUD about the P4.

No, the P4 is a dog. I'd rather have an AthlonXP or AMD64 if I must have a PC. The P4 is not a good or great CPU. It was built to dupe customers with big Mhz numbers and is a significant underperformer. Even the Emergency Edition is a noncontender.

No thanks - I'll take any AMD chip in a PC over a P4 any day.

[Simon]

Originally posted by deboerjo:
Read Waragainstsleep's post again. he's talking about x86 motherboards and you said "They only run Xeons". I was pointing out that that isn't true; there are many other x86 dual-processor platforms, first and foremost Opteron.

My response was directed toward his comment "two P4s would be better than two G5s" which is of course baloney since you can't have two P4s on a single board. That's all. I never mentioned the Athlon or x86 in general.

[Lateralus]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Heh. You can't argue with facts then?

What facts would those be? I have yet to see you present any. Your word is not gold.

Your opinion is that the Pentium 4 is a great processor because it has scaled so well, regardless of the fact that it isn't exactly frugal. Fine, but for those of us with standards, or a different view of what makes a great processor, we will continue to disagree with you.

[pliny]

yeah, there's other aspects to a chip beyond scaling and even this is no longer as good a measure as it MAY have been in the past (within a certain range mind you). Intel themselves admit this now tho i don't have the link, I am too lazy.

All this is longhand for, P4=POS. (It works and is a chip...hmm, what else can we say for it?)

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Lateralus:
What facts would those be? I have yet to see you present any. Your word is not gold.

Your opinion is that the Pentium 4 is a great processor because it has scaled so well, regardless of the fact that it isn't exactly frugal. Fine, but for those of us with standards, or a different view of what makes a great processor, we will continue to disagree with you.

I will point out the fact your ONLY post in this thread before this one was an irrelevant pic. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. It should be obvious to you of all people that if you're going to flame, you should at least be doing it with some intelligent arguments.

BTW, I agree that AMD has an advantage in TDP, if you believe their comparative numbers. AMD has a TDP of 89 Watts, which is 14 W lower than Intel's 103 Watt TDP. However, when we're talking about about a single-CPU (or even dual-CPU) desktop, the difference really is less important, since both setups can be quite quiet. It's more of an advantage when we talk of server clusters, etc.

I also find it interesting that people are harping on power specs, since the G5 at 2.5 GHz is also quite hot. IBM states the G5 runs at 100 Watts max, and Apple says it needs liquid cooling to compensate for the overly high power density (hotspots).

Should we be scrapping dual G5 2.5 GHz Power Macs to get dual Opteron 248 workstations, because of potential performance/Watt and power density considerations?

[Scotttheking]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Should we be scrapping dual G5 2.5 GHz Power Macs to get dual Opteron 248 workstations, because of potential performance/Watt and power density considerations?

Not necessarily that model CPU, no. The nice thing about PCs is you have a choice of what to get.

I'm debating between 244s and 246s, myself. The decision is for the combination of the power usage and the lack of expansion.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Scotttheking:
Not necessarily that model CPU, no. The nice thing about PCs is you have a choice of what to get.

I'm debating between 244s and 246s, myself. The decision is for the combination of the power usage and the lack of expansion.

Well the power rating of the 246 is the same as the 248. The main thing about the 248 is the high cost. BTW, I still don't understand why Apple won't put three hard drive bays into the Power Mac. Having two optical drive bays would be a bonus, but that's less important IMO.

What are you going to be using it for? Just wondering.

[power142]

Originally posted by deboerjo:
I was also replying not just to you, but to Waragainstsleep and power142, who suggest that dual-processor x86 systems are extremely expensive. I've got a Linux Users Group and a few friends who have dual-proc workstations for less than the cost of an iMac.

Just to clarify, what I was angling at was that if someone is in the market to buy a PC from a big name vendor (such as Apple, Dell, HP...) rather than finding the parts from the cheapest possible online outlets and building it for themselves, then buying a machine with comparable specifications and support as a Power Mac G5 is not always going to save such significant sums of money.

For example:

PowerMac G5 2.5DP, 512MB, 160GB = $2999
Dell Precision 470 Xeon 3.2DP, 512MB, 160GB ~= $2800
HP xw6200 Xeon 3.2DP, 512, 160GB ~= $2900

Another point is that a 1.8 G5 is the low-end chip (at an embarrassingly high-end price). I'd be surprised if Photoshop was quite so competitive on a low-end Intel chip, such as 2.4GHz Celeron instead of a 3+GHz P4