[ARK]

Barefeats tests disk and graphics subsystems on the DDR vs. the SDR. I dont know how good these tests are but everyone was complaining that Barefeats sucks... but they did do more tests. Which, show there is still no performance gain on the DDR side.

That makes my new purchase better yet in my eyes.

[KeyLimePi]

Well, I love my Quicksilver dual1G, but I wouldn't mind having that ATI card instead of the GeForce4MX.

[PBG4 User]

These tests are a joke. At least they come right out and tell you that the SDR PM has 1GB RAM and the DDR PM only has 768MB. The next news is the two systems have two different graphics cards in them.

Don't you think they could've swapped vid cards and had both machines with the same amount of RAM? These two components would heavily affect the "tests" that were performed on the PowerMacs.

Also, who designed these lamo tests? How long does it take to render while copying files? Why can't these guys come up with better test ideas?

How about timing copying 1GB of files to show the diff. between ATA100 & DDR vs. ATA66 & SDR? This is the only one I can think of at the moment but I'm sure with a good 10 minutes of thought anyone here could come up with better testing methodology than barefeats (or the people submitting results to BF) did.

[CheesePuff]

Originally posted by KeyLimePi:
Well, I love my Quicksilver dual1G, but I wouldn't mind having that ATI card instead of the GeForce4MX.

You know why Apple put 32 MB of VRAM in the new low end G4 wih the 4 MX card? Because if it had 64 MB like yours does, it would be faster then the ATI card.

[ARK]

Originally posted by PBG4 User:
These tests are a joke. At least they come right out and tell you that the SDR PM has 1GB RAM and the DDR PM only has 768MB. The next news is the two systems have two different graphics cards in them.

Don't you think they could've swapped vid cards and had both machines with the same amount of RAM? These two components would heavily affect the "tests" that were performed on the PowerMacs.

Also, who designed these lamo tests? How long does it take to render while copying files? Why can't these guys come up with better test ideas?

How about timing copying 1GB of files to show the diff. between ATA100 & DDR vs. ATA66 & SDR? This is the only one I can think of at the moment but I'm sure with a good 10 minutes of thought anyone here could come up with better testing methodology than barefeats (or the people submitting results to BF) did.

Everyone always complains about how the tests are lame. Geez.

Crappy test or not.. there still should be a performance gain. I dont care if its turn on 50 programs and copy files or simple photoshop tests. If they made "imporvements" then there should be some amount of "improvement". There should be a performance gain and there isnt. And 1Gb of SDRAM vs. 768 DDRAM.. 768DDR should still outperform the 1Gb due to its "double data rate".

Besides, even if these crappy tests are so crappy and simple then the DDR should have a better performance gain because they are so simple and un taskworthy like everyone makes them out to be. If the current DDR system is so "improved" it SHOULD REALLY fly throught those tests.. and it doesnt.

They also said that they will do Quake 3 tests with the same video card once they get it in. That should be interesting as it evens the playing field in terms of the same equipment.

[Fagetool]

Originally posted by ARK:


Everyone always complains about how the tests are lame. Geez.

Crappy test or not.. there still should be a performance gain. I dont care if its turn on 50 programs and copy files or simple photoshop tests. If they made "imporvements" then there should be some amount of "improvement". There should be a performance gain and there isnt. And 1Gb of SDRAM vs. 768 DDRAM.. 768DDR should still outperform the 1Gb due to its "double data rate".

Besides, even if these crappy tests are so crappy and simple then the DDR should have a better performance gain because they are so simple and un taskworthy like everyone makes them out to be. If the current DDR system is so "improved" it SHOULD REALLY fly throught those tests.. and it doesnt.

They also said that they will do Quake 3 tests with the same video card once they get it in. That should be interesting as it evens the playing field in terms of the same equipment.

I agree. There should be a noticeable improvement, especially if the sticker price is higher than the last model. I believe there are some Mac zealots out there that are beginning to get defensive, with good reason. Mac hardware ain't worthy of its software. That's the fact. Realize it or ignore it, but that fact won't go away until Apple gets serious and puts real hardware into their pricey machines. Fastest Mac ever? Umm... no.
Oh yeah- just because the DDR machine has 256mb less ram(768 vs 1Gb) than the SDR doesn't give it an excuse to be only ONE point faster in the tests. The crux of this matter is that the so called DOUBLE DATA RATE memory bus yields VERY insufficient performance improvement over the SINGLE DATA RATE memory bus. We are talking DOUBLE THE DATA RATE here. Operations should be occurring on the rise AND fall of each and every clock cycle. Stop defending Apple for being lame. They need to pull their heads out of their asses and you know it. If Apple was so goddamn good don't you think the world would have realized that by now and dropped Microsoft?
Now I'm upset because I had been waiting for the DDR machine. Now that it's here, I find that it ain't all that. I may have to wait an eternity for a Mac that will truly smoke a PC.

[businezguy]

I was really feeling the same way about the new hardware released by Apple. As a Windows user, I am used to having the choice of very fast processors and cutting edge video cards.

The thing that really kind of held me back on the PC was the fact that it wasn't really good at organizing or displaying information. It operated pretty fast, but the features just weren't there. I'm a gamer but I have found myself playing less games and getting less interested in them, which was definately Microsoft's trump card regarding keeping me as a customer.

But, I kind of got to thinking and I really want a computer that can interact more with my life. I want it to be able to collect information and organize it neatly. I want to be able to go out and take photos and video, and easily organize and adapt them to my purposes. I certainly have no interest in using a Windows machine for these purposes.

The fact that I can organize and tweak OS X to meet my needs, easily import audio and video, surf the web in luxury, etc, etc, has really piqued my interest in purchasing a Mac.

I can understand why Mac users are disappointed, relative to previous Mac hardware, that the upgrade in hardware has really been a disappointment. At the same rate, unless your really doing something like gaming, I don't really see a point in caring how fast the Windows side of things has become.

I'm considering a Mac for the experience. But, I just say, I went to the Apple store in NYC and the Mac was also pretty darn fast.

[nana4]

Originally posted by businezguy:
, surf the web in luxury, etc, etc, has really piqued my interest in purchasing a Mac.

Web surfing is faster on a PC than on OS X. render times are far less.

[swiz]

Originally posted by nana4:


Web surfing is faster on a PC than on OS X. render times are far less.

You havent used Chimera, have you...?

[TNproud2b]

Originally posted by swiz:


You havent used Chimera, have you...?

You haven't used IE on a 500MHz or better PeeCee.

[swiz]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:


You haven't used IE on a 500MHz or better PeeCee.

True dat, ... proud to say

[Fagetool]

Originally posted by businezguy:
I was really feeling the same way about the new hardware released by Apple. As a Windows user, I am used to having the choice of very fast processors and cutting edge video cards.

The thing that really kind of held me back on the PC was the fact that it wasn't really good at organizing or displaying information. It operated pretty fast, but the features just weren't there. I'm a gamer but I have found myself playing less games and getting less interested in them, which was definately Microsoft's trump card regarding keeping me as a customer.

But, I kind of got to thinking and I really want a computer that can interact more with my life. I want it to be able to collect information and organize it neatly. I want to be able to go out and take photos and video, and easily organize and adapt them to my purposes. I certainly have no interest in using a Windows machine for these purposes.

The fact that I can organize and tweak OS X to meet my needs, easily import audio and video, surf the web in luxury, etc, etc, has really piqued my interest in purchasing a Mac.

I can understand why Mac users are disappointed, relative to previous Mac hardware, that the upgrade in hardware has really been a disappointment. At the same rate, unless your really doing something like gaming, I don't really see a point in caring how fast the Windows side of things has become.

I'm considering a Mac for the experience. But, I just say, I went to the Apple store in NYC and the Mac was also pretty darn fast.

I personally don't understand what you are talking about when you say that Windows doesn't interact with your life as well as MacOS. Last I checked, even Win98 had the ability to easily import audio and video, surf the web in luxury, etc etc. I am an architect operating in the construction administration phase of a very large project. I go to the site frequently, take pictures with a digicam, come back, do a few CAD details, import in a few of those pics I took out on the site, maybe rework 'em in 'shop if they are underexposed or not as clear as desired, shoot the whole thing back out to the subs. I get this done fast, easy, without a hitch on a Win2000 workstation. PC not good at organizing or displaying information? What are you talking about? Do you actually know what you are doing when you are using the PC? Or are you one of those tech challenged folks whom are afraid, very afraid to open the box and see what's inside? I'm not a Windows fanboy, but Mac users seem to think they got something that the Windows users don't, and that's only true to a certain degree. They have something unique, stylized, streamlined, different. But they don't have something that works more efficiently, that's for sure. Windows gets work done, that's it, that's all.
It seems to me that MacOS is set up more for people that don't like to futz around with getting to know the software and hardware side of things in a finite manner. Mac users just want a machine that runs without them having to tweak around on it. Or they want something they can operate with one hand, since the other one is occupied with a double latte. In such case Apple had better hurry up the three button mouse.
Look- I WANT a Mac. I want one real bad. But Apple just hasn't given me a good enough reason to switch yet. Even if I did finally get what I wanted in an Apple computer I would still have a PC around, because Windows works too. All that stuff about blue screens and the PC eating my homework blah blah- hey, I have NEVER had that happen, even when I use the PC irresponsibly. There is an insidious bane to all Wintel users and it is called hardware incompatibility. That's what causes BSOD's and lockups and crashes. There are literally thousands of different hardware combinations to choose from in a Windows PC. Only a handful for the Mac, and that's why Macs seem more stable. Apple doesn't have to spend much time worrying about getting the OS to run properly with different componentry because they control EVERYTHING that goes in the box. They have the inside track on it. How would you feel if there were a million and a half companies out there making hardware that YOU had the ultimate resonsibility of making sure your OS ran flawlessly with? With a PC you can have basically anything you want in that box. And you don't have to buy everything from Intel or Microsoft. That's good. And with the PC, DDR damn well means DDR.
MacOS is schweet. Unix backend is what gets me erect. Look and feel, baby, look and feel. That's what the Mac vs. PC argument is really about. If Apple computers were used as widely as PC's, then there would be a million and a half companies making hardware for them. Then the problems that are supposedly typical of the Windows OS will begin to crop up on the Macs. And from reading this and other forums, it's not like Mac users have a zero-problem coefficient. Quite the contrary.

[funkboy]

Originally posted by swiz:


True dat, ... proud to say

Even though IE is fast on the PC, Chimera is darn skippy. Once the bugs are all shook out, that is going to be the reigning champion on OS X. It's really quite decent on my iBook 500 - faster than IE 5.1 is even on my beige running OS 9 possibly.

I guess we have to (unfortunately) expect a performance loss with all the pretty Quartz... oh well...

(I wish Apple would at least do something about menu drawing and window resizing... unless 10.2 really fixes these issues)

[driven]

Originally posted by Fagetool:

Then the problems that are supposedly typical of the Windows OS will begin to crop up on the Macs. And from reading this and other forums, it's not like Mac users have a zero-problem coefficient. Quite the contrary.

Linux runs on the PC and they seem to have less crashes than Windows. (Using the same hardware base)

[driven]

Also: I've NEVER expected big performance gains from DDR alone. With cache memory and the like the main memory is almost never the bottleneck any more.

Do comparisons on PCs with SDR and DDR memory ... very little improvement there too.

[Fagetool]

Originally posted by driven:
Do comparisons on PCs with SDR and DDR memory ... very little improvement there too.

Umm... wrong. The PC world has migrated entirely to the DDR spec, exactly BECAUSE of the performance advantage DDR provides over SDR.

[TNproud2b]

There's improvement - nobody claimed otherwise.

Even though the memory bandwidth is doubled, the overall machine performance only improves roughly ten percent. It is not perceptible to the user.

[Fagetool]

Originally posted by driven:
With cache memory and the like the main memory is almost never the bottleneck any more.

Also: Apparently you don't read up much on hardware. Main memory is one of the BIGGEST bottlenecks that today's computers suffer from. If what you said were true, there would be no reason to keep developing faster RAM. Everyone would still be using 66Mhz SIMMS. As the processor speeds and frontside bus speeds increase, the memory speed becomes a major bottleneck in the system. It's only as good as its weakest link, right? Go read up on hardware and see for yourself what I'm talking about, because your statement is ridiculously incorrect.

[Fagetool]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
It is not perceptible to the user.

Imperceptible, eh? I sure as hell can tell.

Originally posted by CheesePuff:


You know why Apple put 32 MB of VRAM in the new low end G4 wih the 4 MX card? Because if it had 64 MB like yours does, it would be faster then the ATI card.

LOL. The Radeon 7500 with 32 MB VRAM almost killed the GF 4 MX with 64 MB VRAM in the benchmarks, but the Radeon 9000 beats the crap out of it, no matter which tests you consider. A N D it supports Vertex and Pixel shaders to make Doom III look cool ;-)

Steve

[JNG]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
There's improvement - nobody claimed otherwise.

Even though the memory bandwidth is doubled, the overall machine performance only improves roughly ten percent. It is not perceptible to the user.

This is closest to the truth. I might have said more like 5% on average in overall improvement. It's definitely in the realm of "barely noticeable."

As for whoever said the entire PC world had migrated to DDR RAM, this is simply untrue. The majority (debatably a vast majority) of new consumer PCs still use PC100 or PC133 RAM. Things were headed in a different direction 12-18 months ago, but fell back when RAM prices came up from what was possibly an all-time low.

In my opinion it's silly to choose a computer, let alone a platform, based on this sort of minor difference, or because you think you have to have a computer that will "smoke" another computer. This is personal computing, not The Fast and The Furious, kids.

[Fagetool]

Originally posted by JNG:


This is closest to the truth. I might have said more like 5% on average in overall improvement. It's definitely in the realm of "barely noticeable."

As for whoever said the entire PC world had migrated to DDR RAM, this is simply untrue. The majority (debatably a vast majority) of new consumer PCs still use PC100 or PC133 RAM. Things were headed in a different direction 12-18 months ago, but fell back when RAM prices came up from what was possibly an all-time low.

In my opinion it's silly to choose a computer, let alone a platform, based on this sort of minor difference, or because you think you have to have a computer that will "smoke" another computer. This is personal computing, not The Fast and The Furious, kids.

5%? Wrong-o, Mac user. Sorry. Most consumer PCs use SDR? DDR was cheaper than SDR for quite a while, my friend. Now that the prices have leveled off, nobody chooses the SDR platform, simply because DDR is available. DDR does not cost more than SDR, so why not? What does that mean? Yeah, that's right.
As far as your contention that people should not choose a computer based on its quickness, well, let's just say that speed is a MAJOR factor whenever ANYBODY goes out to buy a new computer. They simply want the fastest that they can get. It is a bad fiscal decision to buy a machine today that is in ANY way slower than it should be. Especially if it costs more than $2500 like the PowerMacs do. If you think that speed doesn't matter, you have been living under limestone for the last two years. Why do you think Intel and AMD have been doing the speed race thing? Time is money, after all. People want speed, sorry 'bout yer luck, because you can get more done over a given period of time with a computer that performs its calculations quickly. In this respect, it IS the Fast and the Furious.
I in no way intend to come off as an a*shole Wintel fanboy, but Mac users need to demand more from Apple, and stop sending them the message that it's OK to stop developing faster hardware. Apple seems to think that just because they have a good OS then they can just throw in whatever hardware and it will do just fine. They have no competition, technically, since if you want Mac you have to buy it from Apple. It seems the idea of evolutionary progress has eluded the Apple hardware engineers.

[KidRed]

Originally posted by Fagetool:


5%? Wrong-o, Mac user. Sorry. Most consumer PCs use SDR? DDR was cheaper than SDR for quite a while, my friend. Now that the prices have leveled off, nobody chooses the SDR platform, simply because DDR is available. DDR does not cost more than SDR, so why not? What does that mean? Yeah, that's right.
As far as your contention that people should not choose a computer based on its quickness, well, let's just say that speed is a MAJOR factor whenever ANYBODY goes out to buy a new computer. They simply want the fastest that they can get. It is a bad fiscal decision to buy a machine today that is in ANY way slower than it should be. Especially if it costs more than $2500 like the PowerMacs do. If you think that speed doesn't matter, you have been living under limestone for the last two years. Why do you think Intel and AMD have been doing the speed race thing? Time is money, after all. People want speed, sorry 'bout yer luck, because you can get more done over a given period of time with a computer that performs its calculations quickly. In this respect, it IS the Fast and the Furious.
I in no way intend to come off as an a*shole Wintel fanboy, but Mac users need to demand more from Apple, and stop sending them the message that it's OK to stop developing faster hardware. Apple seems to think that just because they have a good OS then they can just throw in whatever hardware and it will do just fine. They have no competition, technically, since if you want Mac you have to buy it from Apple. It seems the idea of evolutionary progress has eluded the Apple hardware engineers.

Being a windows users I assume your knowledge of Apple and it's hardware is fairly limited so I'll educate you for my fairly limited knowledge of macs. Apple puts out what their chip makers give them. They don't put out 1.25ghz chips and laugh because they have a warehouse filled with 1.6ghz. They may cut corners on some video cards and ram, but they are doing that for business and obvious reasons. Get the cheap carda nd put in your own. Get minimal memory and put in your own. They have board designs with true DDR but they aren't ready yet.

We can demand all we want, but we will only get what Apple can use based on their suppliers delivery. Where do you get the idea that "Apple stopped developing faster hardware"? Ah, yea, sorry, your either a troll or your knowledge of Apple and macs is very limited making you somewhat naive because that's a ludicrous statement. Not to mention your statement concerning Apple engineers, another laugher.

[Superchicken]

Fagetool.. i like everyone else skimmed over your huge posts.. why?
Ther'es a key your PC says enter, on a Mac it says return. when that's used in these text feilds the html will have a br tag. That's a line break.
They're VERY useful, and they let people skip over the crap that you just put up more quickly, and skip points they already know... instead of just assuming you were being ignorant for the entire section of text.

Like I said very useful. And as for badmouthing importing things on Macs and what not. I'm a Mac user, I'm a computer nerd in general, BUT I can tell you on a Mac it's STILL easier to do audio stuff quickly, and graphics you do much quicker. Not becuase of the proccessor.. but because the Mac GUI is supirior and works much more helpfully than windows.. not to mention PC keyboards all suck

[Fagetool]

Originally posted by KidRed:


Being a windows users I assume your knowledge of Apple and it's hardware is fairly limited so I'll educate you for my fairly limited knowledge of macs. Apple puts out what their chip makers give them. They don't put out 1.25ghz chips and laugh because they have a warehouse filled with 1.6ghz. They may cut corners on some video cards and ram, but they are doing that for business and obvious reasons. Get the cheap carda nd put in your own. Get minimal memory and put in your own. They have board designs with true DDR but they aren't ready yet.

We can demand all we want, but we will only get what Apple can use based on their suppliers delivery. Where do you get the idea that "Apple stopped developing faster hardware"? Ah, yea, sorry, your either a troll or your knowledge of Apple and macs is very limited making you somewhat naive because that's a ludicrous statement. Not to mention your statement concerning Apple engineers, another laugher.

Hello, Mac user, I just bought and immediately SOLD a twin Ghz PowerMac G4(incidentally my PC ran the same apps faster, that's why I sold it)! Don't tell me I'm naive! I'm trying to get switched! Oh, so it's OK to pay out the ass for a PowerMac, and then have to go out and buy MORE stuff just to keep up! THAT'S the real laffer, because they cost way more to begin with! Oh yeah, and have you tried upgrading a Mac? MacOS does a whole lot of funny shite when you do that, just like Windows. Only with Macs, the solution isn't so easily arrived at. Look at the myriad of forum subject headings of Mac users complaining about all the "funny stuff" going on when they try to change the components inside their machine. Many of them don't have a clue as to how to fix it.
Apple either doesn't care about making their hardware worthy of the software(and whether YOU realize it or not, Apple does have control over what it puts in its machines) or it just lacks the expertise to keep its line updated. So ah, yea, sorry, you still need to demand better.
I am no troll. You people are in a haze. You think all is well on the Apple front, when the day is coming when Apple will have to make a serious decision- start doing right by their loyal customers and stay in business, or file chapter 11 because cheap PCs simply run faster. If Apple is at the mercy of its suppliers, it needs to find some new suppliers(and I think the ball has already begun to roll on that one). Its that simple.

[Fagetool]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
Fagetool.. i like everyone else skimmed over your huge posts.. why?
Ther'es a key your PC says enter, on a Mac it says return. when that's used in these text feilds the html will have a br tag. That's a line break.
They're VERY useful, and they let people skip over the crap that you just put up more quickly, and skip points they already know... instead of just assuming you were being ignorant for the entire section of text.

Like I said very useful. And as for badmouthing importing things on Macs and what not. I'm a Mac user, I'm a computer nerd in general, BUT I can tell you on a Mac it's STILL easier to do audio stuff quickly, and graphics you do much quicker. Not becuase of the proccessor.. but because the Mac GUI is supirior and works much more helpfully than windows.. not to mention PC keyboards all suck

Nice spelling. I thought Mac users were supposed to be "smarter". And could you please explain that part about the enter/return thing in ENGLISH this time? Just kidding. And I am not badmouthing the Macintosh! I simply feel that Apple(Jobs) is not doing right by his loyal customer base. Apple hardware is outdated! I want a Mac and will not pay the incredibly INSULTING price for one until they speed it up! Sorry!

[JNG]

Originally posted by Fagetool:


5%? Wrong-o, Mac user. Sorry. Most consumer PCs use SDR? DDR was cheaper than SDR for quite a while, my friend. Now that the prices have leveled off, nobody chooses the SDR platform, simply because DDR is available. DDR does not cost more than SDR, so why not? What does that mean? Yeah, that's right.
As far as your contention that people should not choose a computer based on its quickness, well, let's just say that speed is a MAJOR factor whenever ANYBODY goes out to buy a new computer. They simply want the fastest that they can get. It is a bad fiscal decision to buy a machine today that is in ANY way slower than it should be. Especially if it costs more than $2500 like the PowerMacs do. If you think that speed doesn't matter, you have been living under limestone for the last two years. Why do you think Intel and AMD have been doing the speed race thing? Time is money, after all. People want speed, sorry 'bout yer luck, because you can get more done over a given period of time with a computer that performs its calculations quickly. In this respect, it IS the Fast and the Furious.
I in no way intend to come off as an a*shole Wintel fanboy, but Mac users need to demand more from Apple, and stop sending them the message that it's OK to stop developing faster hardware. Apple seems to think that just because they have a good OS then they can just throw in whatever hardware and it will do just fine. They have no competition, technically, since if you want Mac you have to buy it from Apple. It seems the idea of evolutionary progress has eluded the Apple hardware engineers.

Rather than dismissal I will try to respond. For the record, I have a Mac and a PC I built myself.

I am not wrong-o about the 5% overall system improvement. There are PC motherboards that can accept both PC133 and PC2100, for example; go try one, then the other on the exact same system. I have without altering anything else, and I'm telling you what I experienced. It simply isn't that important to overall system performance; we'd all prefer improvement wherever possible, but it isn't significant enough to make or break a choice of platform or even of particular system in my case.

Nor am I wrong-o that many new PC systems do not have DDR RAM; go look at a catalog from any of the major manufacturers. I did, or I wouldn't have said so. It's spreading through the product lines as it'll now start to filter down through Apple's.

It's never so simple as "faster" when comparing across platforms. Within Apple's line alone, though, improvements have been on the horizon for a while now and have yet to be realized, and that's why people have been complaining recently. But it's just the nature of personal computing that something you buy and have on your desk isn't as advanced as what is about to come out. Apple users are just unusually "plugged in" to the community and enthusiastic/vocal about the future of the platform. I disagree with your central premise-not that speed allows a computer to do more work, but that minor improvements to PC technology have amounted to such a significant speed increase for any particular task-so significant it was clearly acknowledged and perceived cross-platform-that it would constitute a major factor in the choice of a particular system or even platform. It hasn't happened.

Mac users of course wish that some technological corners could be turned sooner, but this has very little to do with Apple. KidRed addressed the major points effectively. These sorts of problems come from waxes and wanes in the fortunes of the computer industry in general or of Apple-contracted hardware vendors in particular. Can you offer a believable reason anyone at Apple would want any of their hardware to be less than it could be? This stuff with Motorola probably frustrates Steve Jobs more than it does most of the Mac community; he is such an "out with the old, in with the new" sort of guy.

Apple is known for innovation; to try and paint them as habitually uninterested in innovation and evolution doesn't show a good knowledge of the history of the personal computing industry. You don't sound like an a*shole or anything but some of the facts aren't in line with what your posts say, that's all.

[Fagetool]

"I am not wrong-o about the 5% overall system improvement."

Wrong-o. "The move to DDR technology alleviates the memory bottleneck that, at present is the main limiting factor in system performance."
-lostcircuits.com
I'm guessing what this means is DDR= a significant performance improvement. Not double the performance of course, but enough to make people say "i want my DDR!"

"Nor am I wrong-o that many new PC systems do not have DDR RAM; go look at a catalog from any of the major manufacturers"
Wrong-o. Go to Dell.com, and you will see 3 out of 4 consumer desktops spec a memory type other than SDR. The one that just so happens to spec SDR is a low-end system(Celeron). We are not talking about low-end systems here. DDR has taken over.

"It's spreading through the product lines as it'll now start to filter down through Apple's." Hello! Cave-dweller! DDR has been in use for a year now. Just now spreading through the product lines, you say? Maybe for the Macworld!

I maintain that Apple needs to step it up.

[TNproud2b]

I'll stand by what I said before. You cannot tell the difference between DDR and standard SDRAM for normal daily use. Sure, you can show big memory bandwidth benchmark scores with DDR, but that doesn't translate into big performance increases.

You cannot convince those of us that have witnessed the difference firsthand that there is a noticeable improvement in the operation of the machine.

I have a socket A motherboard that supports both DDR and SDRAM (not at the same time) and a 800MHz Athlon. I'd be happy to let you play around with it so you can see for yourself - instead of pretending to know what you're talking about.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
I'll stand by what I said before. You cannot tell the difference between DDR and standard SDRAM for normal daily use. Sure, you can show big memory bandwidth benchmark scores with DDR, but that doesn't translate into big performance increases.

You cannot convince those of us that have witnessed the difference firsthand that there is a noticeable improvement in the operation of the machine.

I have a socket A motherboard that supports both DDR and SDRAM (not at the same time) and a 800MHz Athlon. I'd be happy to let you play around with it so you can see for yourself - instead of pretending to know what you're talking about.

In the PC world, the switch from SDR to DDR (with the right chipset!) was accompanied by a performance boost of 5-10 % depending on the application. The same with DDR vs. RAMBUS.

A user �feels' a difference from about 30 % on.

[Fagetool]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
I'll stand by what I said before. You cannot tell the difference between DDR and standard SDRAM for normal daily use. Sure, you can show big memory bandwidth benchmark scores with DDR, but that doesn't translate into big performance increases.

You cannot convince those of us that have witnessed the difference firsthand that there is a noticeable improvement in the operation of the machine.

I have a socket A motherboard that supports both DDR and SDRAM (not at the same time) and a 800MHz Athlon. I'd be happy to let you play around with it so you can see for yourself - instead of pretending to know what you're talking about.

I have a DDR board too. I also have an SDR board. Like a lot of people, I can tell a difference. Pretending to know what I'm talking about? I think you pretend to know what I pretend to know! Don't you get uppity with me! And no, I do not wish to "play" with your board, which was silly of you to offer.
Go ahead and stand by what you said before. See if I care. It's a free country.
Apple hardware needs to be faster.

[Fagetool]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:


In the PC world, the switch from SDR to DDR (with the right chipset!) was accompanied by a performance boost of 5-10 % depending on the application. The same with DDR vs. RAMBUS.

A user �feels' a difference from about 30 % on.

A user 'feels' a difference when a user feels a difference. Do not presume to know my threshold of perception.

[derbs]

Originally posted by Fagetool:


Hello, Mac user, I just bought and immediately SOLD a twin Ghz PowerMac G4(incidentally my PC ran the same apps faster, that's why I sold it)! Don't tell me I'm naive! I'm trying to get switched! Oh, so it's OK to pay out the ass for a PowerMac, and then have to go out and buy MORE stuff just to keep up! THAT'S the real laffer, because they cost way more to begin with! Oh yeah, and have you tried upgrading a Mac? MacOS does a whole lot of funny shite when you do that, just like Windows. Only with Macs, the solution isn't so easily arrived at. Look at the myriad of forum subject headings of Mac users complaining about all the "funny stuff" going on when they try to change the components inside their machine. Many of them don't have a clue as to how to fix it.
Apple either doesn't care about making their hardware worthy of the software(and whether YOU realize it or not, Apple does have control over what it puts in its machines) or it just lacks the expertise to keep its line updated. So ah, yea, sorry, you still need to demand better.
I am no troll. You people are in a haze. You think all is well on the Apple front, when the day is coming when Apple will have to make a serious decision- start doing right by their loyal customers and stay in business, or file chapter 11 because cheap PCs simply run faster. If Apple is at the mercy of its suppliers, it needs to find some new suppliers(and I think the ball has already begun to roll on that one). Its that simple.

fagetroll

You are a typical PC troll. You say you just "bought and immediately sold a powermac G4". That is such bull. Barefaced lie. You've never owned a Mac in your life; in fact I bet you've never even touched one outside an Apple store. You see, PC users have no taste, no sense of style. They want to get their money's worth out of every dollar they spend on a computer. I can understand this apart from

a) the case is fugly.
b) it runs Microsoft Windows
c) the company you bought it from couldn't innovate a ****ing pissup in a brewery

Errrr. I'll take the Mac thanks very much.

Read this

www.apple.com/thinkdifferent

[derbs]

Originally posted by Fagetool:


Do not presume to know my threshold of perception.

You're such a gaylord I think it's time for you to leave now

[Brazuca]

Man, this is so sad. I, being completely selfish, chose the MacOS a long time ago, and I have never owned a PC.
I, being selfish, want the MacOS to be improved so that I don't have to use Winblows.
I, being selfish, want all the apps that I need to work better on my Mac so that I don't have to deal with Winblows.
I, being selfish, want my new Mac to be very, very fast. I don't do just word processing. I need speed. I need multiple monitors. I need every ounce of performance that my money can buy. I don't want an iMac. I want a POWER-Mac.

I don't care what the excuses for Apple are. I am selfish. I want Apple to succeed and make better hardware/software so that I can get my work done. The point is that Apple hardware is not what it can be. What we are seeing inside these new machines is at least 1 year old.

People! We are talking about computers here! 1 year old hardware released today is just sad. I don't care what the excuses are. Competition demands better performance. I demand better performance. Apple is not a charity and I am not a sucker.

I want a POWER-Mac. It doesn't have to be a 15terahrz machine. It does have to *at least* have up-to-date technology.

And before you call me a troll, remember what I said: I HAVE NEVER OWNED A PC, AND I DON'T WANT TO!!! I LOVE OSX!!

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Fagetool:


A user 'feels' a difference when a user feels a difference. Do not presume to know my threshold of perception.

Of course it depends on the stuff you are doing, but this is a rule of thumb. A computer magazine stated that once and it confirms my experience.

[Mac Zealot]

Originally posted by Fagetool:


I personally don't understand what you are talking about when you say that Windows doesn't interact with your life as well as MacOS. Last I checked, even Win98 had the ability to easily import audio and video, surf the web in luxury, etc etc. I am an architect operating in the construction administration phase of a very large project. I go to the site frequently, take pictures with a digicam, come back, do a few CAD details, import in a few of those pics I took out on the site, maybe rework 'em in 'shop if they are underexposed or not as clear as desired, shoot the whole thing back out to the subs. I get this done fast, easy, without a hitch on a Win2000 workstation. PC not good at organizing or displaying information? What are you talking about? Do you actually know what you are doing when you are using the PC? Or are you one of those tech challenged folks whom are afraid, very afraid to open the box and see what's inside? I'm not a Windows fanboy, but Mac users seem to think they got something that the Windows users don't, and that's only true to a certain degree. They have something unique, stylized, streamlined, different. But they don't have something that works more efficiently, that's for sure. Windows gets work done, that's it, that's all.
It seems to me that MacOS is set up more for people that don't like to futz around with getting to know the software and hardware side of things in a finite manner. Mac users just want a machine that runs without them having to tweak around on it. Or they want something they can operate with one hand, since the other one is occupied with a double latte. In such case Apple had better hurry up the three button mouse.
Look- I WANT a Mac. I want one real bad. But Apple just hasn't given me a good enough reason to switch yet. Even if I did finally get what I wanted in an Apple computer I would still have a PC around, because Windows works too. All that stuff about blue screens and the PC eating my homework blah blah- hey, I have NEVER had that happen, even when I use the PC irresponsibly. There is an insidious bane to all Wintel users and it is called hardware incompatibility. That's what causes BSOD's and lockups and crashes. There are literally thousands of different hardware combinations to choose from in a Windows PC. Only a handful for the Mac, and that's why Macs seem more stable. Apple doesn't have to spend much time worrying about getting the OS to run properly with different componentry because they control EVERYTHING that goes in the box. They have the inside track on it. How would you feel if there were a million and a half companies out there making hardware that YOU had the ultimate resonsibility of making sure your OS ran flawlessly with? With a PC you can have basically anything you want in that box. And you don't have to buy everything from Intel or Microsoft. That's good. And with the PC, DDR damn well means DDR.
MacOS is schweet. Unix backend is what gets me erect. Look and feel, baby, look and feel. That's what the Mac vs. PC argument is really about. If Apple computers were used as widely as PC's, then there would be a million and a half companies making hardware for them. Then the problems that are supposedly typical of the Windows OS will begin to crop up on the Macs. And from reading this and other forums, it's not like Mac users have a zero-problem coefficient. Quite the contrary.

Huh? What? Man you need to chill!

Calm, down man, we're not taking over the earth.

[Graymalkin]

Oi.

So many comments about DDR memory and what marketing hype has led people to believe it does yet few rational comments on the subject. In the best of models DDR memory allows a processor to talk to the system's main memory very fast so it can eat up oodles of data and do something to it. DDR is great if you want to move a bunch of static arrays all over the place and not do a whole bunch to them. The throughput is truly amazing.

Doing dynamic arrays or just dynamic data in general is a much different story. It is extremely difficult to find a useful operation your processor can perform so many times per second that the bandwidth between in and main system memory is a real issue. Even an ultrabad Athlon is going to have trouble completely utilizing its amazing bus bandwidth between RAM and the processor. If you throw in periphrial media access like the video or networking subsystem it becomes much easier to pull it off.

As such the G4 is not necessarily humbled performance wise when it comes to actual processing performance even without true support for DDR memory. When you have a bandwidth lacking system you add caches which exactly what Apple/Mot has done with the PowerMacs. The L3 cache does a good job of keeping data waiting to be written to memory or waiting to be processed. The L2 cache is going to be able to keep of your instruction data for any repetitive task like 3D rendering or some such.

The tests on the first page show rather plainly that the processing power of the G4s in all three systems is what is hindering performance. The DDR aspect of the new systems has no effect when it comes to raw processing power which is exactly as to be expected. Why people are flumoxed over this I do not understand. The conclusion is rather obvious, faster memory doesn't mean the processors work any faster. The MemPerf test is just a bandwidth-o-meter and not really indicitive of actual application performance unless you sit around generating random arrays of 64-bit integers and write them to memory.

The second battery of tests only goed on to exacerbate the problem of multiple processors on a shared bus topology. The big boys in the high end processing industry left traditional shared bus topologies behind a long time ago. The likes of SGI, IBM, and HP use various combinations of point to point or narrow/fast interconnects to let their processors all talk to each other. Even AMD got it right with the Athlon's point to point topology. Apple using a shared bus is logistics rather than engineering skill. Mot has 7455s available, Apple needs G4s, ergo Apple buys Mot's 7455s and makes due with what they have.

Neither battery of tests does much more than raise sensationalist points in an effort to get eyeballs and thus generate ad revenue. This whole thread is not very worthy of such discussion and bitterness. Fagetool, you're very very foolish and naive. Your Windows arguments are sparse at best, Microsoft does not make the drivers they package with Windows. They get shipped drivers from hardware vendors operating on razor thin margins due to high competition. Microsoft runs said drivers through a standardized QA round or two and sticks them on their release CD. DDR in a Mac is indeed DDR as well. It is only relatively recently any x86 processor actually worked with DDR memory in a full capacity, saying otherwise makes you look downright silly. No one gives a bolup of digested donuts if Apple has convinced you to switch yet. You've started a flame battle setting up retarded strawman arguments in order to make yourself feel like you've won some argument no one else is interested in having.

[cdhostage]

Battery of tests for a new G4 and an old G4:

run RC5 for 1 hour under optimum conditions.

duplicate a 1 GB file on the main HD.

duplicate 1 GB of files, varying sizes, on the main HD.

run an array of Photoshop filters on a 100 MB image.

rip 1 CD's worth of audio stored in memory to MP3 in memory - no long HD reads or writes

run the latest shooter games at minumum quality, get the fps

run the latest shooter games at maximum quality, get the fps

And the biggie... run Civilization 3 on a huge map during the late modern age and NOT have to wait more than 3 minutes between turns. I don't think any Mac can do this,.

[Superchicken]

you bought a Dual 1Ghz and then sold it?
hahahahhahahaha

oh man that's rich.
guess he thought the lack of full DDR implementation was the bottle neck for IE rendering his porn sites.

grr PC trolls are annoyg, and it's even worse when they try to sound like they know what they're talking about... or think no one will catch on when they only have what 16 posts?
Gimmie a break!

Oh and as to the DDR Thing... I think apple gave us what we asked for and now we arn't happy cause our dreams were shattered.
Oh well once Moto gets the proccessor up well.. or IBM bails us out, all the people who have these machines will be quite happy they have the boards they've got... although they'll complain about not having 8x AGP...

[rambo47]

Did anyone really think we'd get more than the XServe-implementation of DDR RAM?! It's not some state secret that the G4 can't handle DDR RAM, so until we move to the new IBM Power4 hybrid chip, there will be no true DDR RAM. Note that I said hybrid when mentioning the Power4. The future of the Mac will be based on the Power4 but we all know there will never be a true Power4 in a PowerMac, right?

As far as the DDR RAM and performance, perhaps the smaller cache on the new chip was crippling enough to erase any gains the RAM would have provided, and then some. What I'd like to see is a G4 chip with 4 MB of L3 cache and 1 MB of on-die L2 cache. It'd be a big sucker, but hey, there's plenty of room in the El Capitain case. Use it!

[Fagetool]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
you bought a Dual 1Ghz and then sold it?
hahahahhahahaha

oh man that's rich.
guess he thought the lack of full DDR implementation was the bottle neck for IE rendering his porn sites.

grr PC trolls are annoyg, and it's even worse when they try to sound like they know what they're talking about... or think no one will catch on when they only have what 16 posts?
Gimmie a break!

Oh and as to the DDR Thing... I think apple gave us what we asked for and now we arn't happy cause our dreams were shattered.
Oh well once Moto gets the proccessor up well.. or IBM bails us out, all the people who have these machines will be quite happy they have the boards they've got... although they'll complain about not having 8x AGP...

Actually I got a super schweet deal from someone here in the office. I sold it high, the $$$ went into my BMW fund. Wasn't impressed enough to keep it. Sure made a healthy contribution to my savings acct. though!

[Fagetool]

Originally posted by Brazuca:
Man, this is so sad. I, being completely selfish, chose the MacOS a long time ago, and I have never owned a PC.
I, being selfish, want the MacOS to be improved so that I don't have to use Winblows.
I, being selfish, want all the apps that I need to work better on my Mac so that I don't have to deal with Winblows.
I, being selfish, want my new Mac to be very, very fast. I don't do just word processing. I need speed. I need multiple monitors. I need every ounce of performance that my money can buy. I don't want an iMac. I want a POWER-Mac.

I don't care what the excuses for Apple are. I am selfish. I want Apple to succeed and make better hardware/software so that I can get my work done. The point is that Apple hardware is not what it can be. What we are seeing inside these new machines is at least 1 year old.

People! We are talking about computers here! 1 year old hardware released today is just sad. I don't care what the excuses are. Competition demands better performance. I demand better performance. Apple is not a charity and I am not a sucker.

I want a POWER-Mac. It doesn't have to be a 15terahrz machine. It does have to *at least* have up-to-date technology.

And before you call me a troll, remember what I said: I HAVE NEVER OWNED A PC, AND I DON'T WANT TO!!! I LOVE OSX!!

finally someone who understands where i'm coming from
Mac zealots need to represent, and demand better!

[Fagetool]

Originally posted by derbs:


You're such a gaylord I think it's time for you to leave now

"gaylord"? good one. nice. Just remember who started the sophomoric name-calling- sure wasn't me!
If it's time for me to leave, see if you can make me, since you are so effing good. Limey turd.

[Fagetool]

Originally posted by Graymalkin:
Oi.

So many comments about DDR memory and what marketing hype has led people to believe it does yet few rational comments on the subject. In the best of models DDR memory allows a processor to talk to the system's main memory very fast so it can eat up oodles of data and do something to it. DDR is great if you want to move a bunch of static arrays all over the place and not do a whole bunch to them. The throughput is truly amazing.

Doing dynamic arrays or just dynamic data in general is a much different story. It is extremely difficult to find a useful operation your processor can perform so many times per second that the bandwidth between in and main system memory is a real issue. Even an ultrabad Athlon is going to have trouble completely utilizing its amazing bus bandwidth between RAM and the processor. If you throw in periphrial media access like the video or networking subsystem it becomes much easier to pull it off.

As such the G4 is not necessarily humbled performance wise when it comes to actual processing performance even without true support for DDR memory. When you have a bandwidth lacking system you add caches which exactly what Apple/Mot has done with the PowerMacs. The L3 cache does a good job of keeping data waiting to be written to memory or waiting to be processed. The L2 cache is going to be able to keep of your instruction data for any repetitive task like 3D rendering or some such.

The tests on the first page show rather plainly that the processing power of the G4s in all three systems is what is hindering performance. The DDR aspect of the new systems has no effect when it comes to raw processing power which is exactly as to be expected. Why people are flumoxed over this I do not understand. The conclusion is rather obvious, faster memory doesn't mean the processors work any faster. The MemPerf test is just a bandwidth-o-meter and not really indicitive of actual application performance unless you sit around generating random arrays of 64-bit integers and write them to memory.

The second battery of tests only goed on to exacerbate the problem of multiple processors on a shared bus topology. The big boys in the high end processing industry left traditional shared bus topologies behind a long time ago. The likes of SGI, IBM, and HP use various combinations of point to point or narrow/fast interconnects to let their processors all talk to each other. Even AMD got it right with the Athlon's point to point topology. Apple using a shared bus is logistics rather than engineering skill. Mot has 7455s available, Apple needs G4s, ergo Apple buys Mot's 7455s and makes due with what they have.

Neither battery of tests does much more than raise sensationalist points in an effort to get eyeballs and thus generate ad revenue. This whole thread is not very worthy of such discussion and bitterness. Fagetool, you're very very foolish and naive. Your Windows arguments are sparse at best, Microsoft does not make the drivers they package with Windows. They get shipped drivers from hardware vendors operating on razor thin margins due to high competition. Microsoft runs said drivers through a standardized QA round or two and sticks them on their release CD. DDR in a Mac is indeed DDR as well. It is only relatively recently any x86 processor actually worked with DDR memory in a full capacity, saying otherwise makes you look downright silly. No one gives a bolup of digested donuts if Apple has convinced you to switch yet. You've started a flame battle setting up retarded strawman arguments in order to make yourself feel like you've won some argument no one else is interested in having.

DDR is an evolutionary step. Whether or not it actually improves performance by leaps and bounds or not is a moot issue. The fact remains is it's a step in the right direction. A step that Apple has made a half-assed effort at taking. They sure as hell do emphasize DDR in the new marketing for the PowerMac, don't they? So I suppose it's Apple's marketing hype you're referring to! They want people to take notice by advertising it as if it were some huge improvement. They use DDR as nothing more than a marketing tool, not as a legitimate means by which to advance their product.
Moore's law governs the computing world. You should at least try to keep up with the others. Apple can't keep up.
Like I said before I'd like to get a Mac, but the performance right now just isn't stellar. I suppose that it never will be, either, since no Mac user will ever step up and make the argument for faster+better. All they seem to care about is look and feel. Look and feel alone doesn't get work done. Sorry Mac users. Mac users can go on telling themselves that their computers are the cutting edge while sipping a double latte(and paying double price- I don't care WHERE you're from Derbs, getting ripped off ain't never been cool, even if it's done for the sake of STYLE, which everyone knows is EVERYTHING); meanwhile all of the "unstylish" PC users get all the work done. That's the way it been, that's the way it always will be.

Mac users are ridiculous, elitist, self-obsessed, self-proclaimed aristocrats. You people have a record of going down pretty good throughout history. Let's see where Apple is in about ten years.

[derbs]

please just take your Dell surfing somewhere else. I know everyone's got the right to their opinions, but a) you've already spouted too much **** and b) you're obviously just here to antagonise Mac users. This website is called MacNN if you hadn't noticed...

[derbs]

Originally posted by Fagetool:

Like I said before I'd like to get a Mac, but the performance right now just isn't stellar. I suppose that it never will be, either, since no Mac user will ever step up and make the argument for faster+better. All they seem to care about is look and feel. Look and feel alone doesn't get work done. Sorry Mac users. Mac users can go on telling themselves that their computers are the cutting edge while sipping a double latte(and paying double price- I don't care WHERE you're from Derbs, getting ripped off ain't never been cool, even if it's done for the sake of STYLE, which everyone knows is EVERYTHING); meanwhile all of the "unstylish" PC users get all the work done. That's the way it been, that's the way it always will be.

Mac users are ridiculous, elitist, self-obsessed, self-proclaimed aristocrats. You people have a record of going down pretty good throughout history. Let's see where Apple is in about ten years.

Dude, I have a Mac and a PC at work. I'm roughly 15 times as productive on a Mac. You think going from a 1.5gig Intel to a 2gig Intel means your productivity improves 25%?? Haha. Damn, i could go and work on my old 7500, with its 100mhz 601 PPC processor and 96meg of RAM and still be about 3 times as productive as a 3 friggin GHZ PC. Look, feel, useability - that's what important. You've totally missed the point.

I spent about $2000 on my dual 800 G4. It's a brilliant machine, best computer i have ever owned. Do people feel ripped of when they buy a Mercedez-Benz, when for half the price you could have bought a Neon that goes the same speed? I didn't think so. In fact, you would feel ripped off because you are tight. I am a connoisseur. You are a lemming consumer.

And where will Apple be in ten years. Where any other innovative company is, doing well, making profit, and releasing cool stuff.

Do you know how much money Apple spends on R&D?? Do you know how many brilliant people work for them?

The typical box-shifting PC manufacturer will be gone in ten years. They spend ZERO on R&D, they purchase chips from Intel, hard drives from IBM and software from Microsoft. Intel, Microsoft and IBM will still be around in ten years, because they spend money and innovate. As will Apple.

[Spliffdaddy]

I'd feel ripped-off if my Mercedes had a Neon engine.

Apparently that wouldn't bother an Apple apologist...

[derbs]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I'd feel ripped-off if my Mercedes had a Neon engine.

Apparently that wouldn't bother an Apple apologist...

The P4, in fact all the x86 are very inefficient processors. The P3s were actually quicker than the P4s at the same clock rate in the real world. The only reason clock is speed is so high is because it HAS to be when the pipeline is deeper than the mid-atlantic trench

[Keda]

BMW fund. Now I can relate. It takes alot of cash to mod an ///M...but its so fun to drive

What's the difference between a porcupine and a BMW?

The porcupine has the pricks on the outside.


I do multimedia for a living...and prefer Macs. My brother got a dual gig yesterday and I finally got to spend some time on one doing real work. I was blown away. It is a great machine and very fast.

At my job, I work in a cross-platform office (although Macs are the weapon of choice) and do media work on win2k, OS9(not for long), and OSX. Our machines range in speed, with the fastest(mhz) being 1.8G PC, but work gets done at about the same speed on all of them. Even more to the point, I have an upgrade BeigeG(4) at home...I get a ton of work done on that too, even tho its showing its age.

I'm not going to say that mhz doesn't matter, but given the choice btwn the machines out there today (Mac & PC) I'd still go w/a Mac. The HW is very nice, and as I said, the new G4 impressed me when I used it. But it really boils down to the OS. OSX is just F'n cool and its beginning to mature.

Mac users are ridiculous, elitist, self-obsessed, self-proclaimed aristocrats. You people have a record of going down pretty good throughout history. Let's see where Apple is in about ten years.

Damn dude, was someone mean to you?

As far as the the next ten years go...I think Apple will be doing fine. People have been talking about Apple's demise for the last 10 years