[Zimphire]

http://www.cpuscorecard.com/

Interesting.

[euphras]

yes, interesting...is it for one G4 CPU or did they test two G4s?

Pat

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by euphras:
yes, interesting...is it for one G4 CPU or did they test two G4s?

Pat

Well considering the 1.2ghz G4 only comes in dual form..

[Nimisys]

then i guess i ought to point out how a single 2600xp equalled it and a single 2100+ chip was 1% behind

[file]

Originally posted by Nimisys:
then i guess i ought to point out how a single 2600xp equalled it and a single 2100+ chip was 1% behind

nimisys,

when you use a high ghz PC and a high ghz Mac, don't you feel as though the PC should be twice as fast as the mac?

Every PC i used over 2. ghz certainly hasn't knocked my socks off. Feels about the same as my former 1.8 ghz. even doing film type production chores...feels like the same speed.

Atleast on a mac it's fast and easy to use

[euphras]

quote:
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by euphras:
yes, interesting...is it for one G4 CPU or did they test two G4s?

Pat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well considering the 1.2ghz G4 only comes in dual form.."


Can someone disable one G4 in the dual systems in order to test the performance/G4?? That where my thoughts...

Pat

[Zimphire]

Why would you want to?

I just posted this to expell some of the "PCs blow Macs off the map in speed" FUD tripe that a few in here like to spread.

This shows, there really isn't THAT much of a difference.

They look at the numbers, and get insecure.

Sad.

[euphras]

I still think you have to compare single processors. If you bench a G4 dual against a dual Athlon system, then.........................well the numbers wont be looking so good...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by euphras:
I still think you have to compare single processors. If you bench a G4 dual against a dual Athlon system, then.........................well the numbers wont be looking so good...

Why does it matter? This is what is being offered.

Benching a 2.8ghz P4 against a 1.2ghz G4 isn't that fair either, but that is what is out, what is offered.

Top of the line with top of the line.

[file]

The way i see dual processors is:

Apple found a way to bring us dual processor technology.

PCs haven't adopted it for their sustomers yet.

If they did, then their customers/gamers may have monster dual 3 ghz machines...but they don't unless they make it themselves.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by file:
The way i see dual processors is:

Apple found a way to bring us dual processor technology.

PCs haven't adopted it for their sustomers yet.

If they did, then their customers/gamers may have monster dual 3 ghz machines...but they don't unless they make it themselves.

Not to mention if you have a dual PC, you have to PAY EXTRA for the "better" Windows version. WindowsXP home version will not use the dual processors.

Try getting a Dual PC with Windows for the price and parts that the G4 has.

[euphras]

Quote:

"Top of the line with top of the line."



Yeah, and thats the problem: The top-of-the-line on the windows-based side are these "shivers-down-the-spine" monster workstations provided by IBM (yes, i adore "Big Blue" ), HP, Sun (not so strong anymore??!?), etc...

You have to compare Apples T-O-T-L with those machines

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by euphras:
Quote:

"Top of the line with top of the line."



Yeah, and thats the problem: The top-of-the-line on the windows-based side are these "shivers-down-the-spine" monster workstations provided by IBM (yes, i adore "Big Blue" ), HP, Sun (not so strong anymore??!?), etc...

You have to compare Apples T-O-T-L with those machines

TOTL CONSUMER MACHINES.

Stop being thick.

:-)

[file]

euphras,

it's not macs vs. the entire PC industry

if apple started a division where they assembled special custom hardware for businesses...then we can compare.

They could buy real ibm Power 4s and make specialty processing units with custom version of OSX and operate just like the other custom manufacturers do right? I mean if there was a need and some company actually wanted one.


i think zimphire is saying that easily available high-end pro/consumer level machines are not as far apart as you may realize

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by file:

i think zimphire is saying that easily available high-end pro/consumer level machines are not as far apart as you may realize

BING BING BING. Give that man a cigar.

That was my whole point.

But SHHHH he PC using zealots don't want you to know that.

Add this information plus the fact that you pretty much have to use Windows, it's just not worth it.

[file]

thanks for the cigar

i am a switcher like i said many times before...

use compareable machines and they're barely noticeable.

if you're a professional in video/3d/effects/broadcast graphics...make the decision on what you want to get. slightly slower w/ better interface or faster PC with clunky gui. but these people are professionals and they have to make decisions about their equipment.

(as of this moment, i have worked professionally on a dual ghz and a 2.4 PC at my clients studio)

[Nimisys]

Originally posted by file:


nimisys,

when you use a high ghz PC and a high ghz Mac, don't you feel as though the PC should be twice as fast as the mac?

Every PC i used over 2. ghz certainly hasn't knocked my socks off. Feels about the same as my former 1.8 ghz. even doing film type production chores...feels like the same speed.

Atleast on a mac it's fast and easy to use

umm there shouldn't be a big difference between a 1.8ghz and a 2+ ghz machine... 200mhz difference. i did notice a difference form a 1.3 to 2100+

and besides the 1.25ghz g4 was in a dual setup meanwhile the 2600xpo is a single at about 2.2ghz i believe

as for on the mac, ease of use is subjective ( os9 is my personal hell) and fast is rationalized

[euphras]

Quote:

"But SHHHH he PC using zealots don't want you to know that."

If you would look at my previous posts, you could easily detect that i am NO ZEALOT AT All !!

I prefer the best of both worlds, the Macintosh and the high end Wintel world.

Go and have a cigar

[file]

Originally posted by Nimisys:


umm there shouldn't be a big difference between a 1.8ghz and a 2+ ghz machine... 200mhz difference. i did notice a difference form a 1.3 to 2100+

i'm recent to macs. i've been PC all my life. i've been using the latest intel technology for years.

i bought a tibook 800 and all that ghz crap flies out the window. (for the most part, i still know and believe that the pcs may perform better at the highest customization)

and besides the 1.25ghz g4 was in a dual setup meanwhile the 2600xpo is a single at about 2.2ghz i believe

the whole point is that apple saw a problem and solved it by making dual processors standard. i see no problem with how they do it as long as they do it.

[Vanquish]

who cares ??? how many people always have the newest and fastest intel/amd/whatever hardware ? not that much IMO. I think the avarage speed people are still using around me is about 1,5 Ghz (or even lower). Only the total freaks who spend too much money on their crap machines have 2.8 ghz P4 and stuff like that. Most of the new machines being sold are still 2 to 2,4 Ghz (not even mentioning the Celeron crap). Also as an example I don't notice the speed difference between a 733 Mhz P3 and a 450 Mhz P3 (they still use the same crap OS ). And who needs 0,151646 seconds faster performance on some stupid task when you have a crap OS ? (yes even when you're runnig Linux, because IMO the interface of *any* Linux OS is even crappier than Windows).

[Zimphire]

The biggest MHZ myth is, that there is actually a big difference. There isn't.

It's all a penis measuring contest and marketing hype. And the fools follow it.

[Pojo]

Is there any info on what the test are? I looked briefly at the site but could not find anything conclusive. I would not believe anything unless I can see how they got the scores they got.

The reason duals are not mainstream outside of apple is because it doesnt justify the expense for the little perfomance boost you get. Majority of people dont run dual aware apps and will see no real world benefit from using duals. Apple had to do it to stay competitive in their photoshop demos so they can still sell some computers to a few suckers.

Why in the world would you compare duals vs singles? For the price of Dual 1.25 G4 tower you can easily buy a better equiped dual xeon machine. The xeon machine will simply demolish the Apple tower in just about everything.

I just dont understand how they rate the cpus, if you look at their other comparisons the g3/g4 is nearly always dead last. It doesnt make much sense. Where are the lower speed G4 ranked? What type of subsystems did they use for their cpu comparison? DDR machines SDRAM machines?

Another words dont put any faith in any of these numbers. Things just dont add up right on their charts.

[file]

Originally posted by Pojo:

The reason duals are not mainstream outside of apple is because it doesnt justify the expense for the little perfomance boost you get. Majority of people dont run dual aware apps and will see no real world benefit from using duals.

osx takes advantage of dual processors

Why in the world would you compare duals vs singles? For the price of Dual 1.25 G4 tower you can easily buy a better equiped dual xeon machine. The xeon machine will simply demolish the Apple tower in just about everything.

apple sells them as their high end offering. dell, gateway hasn't adopted dual xeons yet for their highest yet (just like apple hasn't adopted some technologies too)

"demolish" isn't the same as if you said that 2-3 yrs ago. the demolished machine is still pretty fast but value wise...don't go mac if you have no money

[Pojo]

Any modern os takes some advantage of dual procs but applications still have to be made to do so specifically. Most applications see very small improvement from dual procs. Some specialized workstation class apps will get a huge boost and thats the public that buys duals.

There is nothing special in OSX that makes it any better at using duals then Win2K, Linux or Bsd. Duals are nothing new they have been around for decades really. I had my old dual p2 box then dual p3 box now I am about to trade in my dual axp box. For me duals are worth it because I run lots dual aware apps where it really helps.

Dual cpu are a waist for majority of users its that simple. Apple has no choice but to include them to stay competitive with single offerings on the pc side. When you start comparing dual vs duals things get really sad.

I like apple new towers and would get it if they were cheaper. My current dual box cost less and is faster then what apple is offering me. The only reason I am even looking at them is because of OSX and to experiment a little bit.

Dual machiens have always been available from all the major pc manufacturers like dell, compaq, gateway and hp. They never stoped offering them at all, even now you can get dual 2.8ghz xeon boxes from just about anyone. There is a solid always present market for workstation machines not to mention servers.

Apple is dead last in offering dual machines to the general public. Once again its not because they want to give you duals its because they have to at this point. When you buy dual 1 gig powermac what you have is basically a single 1 gig mac 80% of the time you use it.

Some people that use dual aware apps all the time will get their moneys worth but the rest are just falling for the dual hype.

This argument is so damn old and tired, why cant you just face that the macs are far behind and leave it alone. I dont see why people need to try and twist facts to make themselves feel better about their platform.

Hell when that new ibm cpu comes out with mac could very well get faster then pc, I would switch to a mac very quickly if thats the case. Never understoon this loyalty to any greedy company...

[Spliffdaddy]

jeebus. the world stood still for a moment.

Pojo has redeemed himself in the eyes of Spliff.

A fellow SMP junky, whodathunkit?

word up, Poj

word UP.

Once you experience SMP, you are left with both disappointment AND awe.

that being said, I notice that almost nobody returns from the land of duals.

[rampant]

Originally posted by Pojo:
Any modern os takes some advantage of dual procs but applications still have to be made to do so specifically. Most applications see very small improvement from dual procs. Some specialized workstation class apps will get a huge boost and thats the public that buys duals.

There is nothing special in OSX that makes it any better at using duals then Win2K, Linux or Bsd. Duals are nothing new they have been around for decades really. I had my old dual p2 box then dual p3 box now I am about to trade in my dual axp box. For me duals are worth it because I run lots dual aware apps where it really helps.

Dual cpu are a waist for majority of users its that simple. Apple has no choice but to include them to stay competitive with single offerings on the pc side. When you start comparing dual vs duals things get really sad.

I like apple new towers and would get it if they were cheaper. My current dual box cost less and is faster then what apple is offering me. The only reason I am even looking at them is because of OSX and to experiment a little bit.

Dual machiens have always been available from all the major pc manufacturers like dell, compaq, gateway and hp. They never stoped offering them at all, even now you can get dual 2.8ghz xeon boxes from just about anyone. There is a solid always present market for workstation machines not to mention servers.

Apple is dead last in offering dual machines to the general public. Once again its not because they want to give you duals its because they have to at this point. When you buy dual 1 gig powermac what you have is basically a single 1 gig mac 80% of the time you use it.

Some people that use dual aware apps all the time will get their moneys worth but the rest are just falling for the dual hype.

This argument is so damn old and tired, why cant you just face that the macs are far behind and leave it alone. I dont see why people need to try and twist facts to make themselves feel better about their platform.

Hell when that new ibm cpu comes out with mac could very well get faster then pc, I would switch to a mac very quickly if thats the case. Never understoon this loyalty to any greedy company...

Bling bling, motherf*cker, bling bling.

[rampant]

Oh, and by the by, www.cpuscorecard.com is not benchmark related, but PRICE/PERFORMANCE rated.

Plus, look what else is rated an A+... The Celeron 1.7 Ghz- which is AS FAST OR SLOWER than a Tualitan Celeron 1.2Ghz.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Pojo:
Is there any info on what the test are? I looked briefly at the site but could not find anything conclusive. I would not believe anything unless I can see how they got the scores they got.

The reason duals are not mainstream outside of apple is because it doesnt justify the expense for the little perfomance boost you get. Majority of people dont run dual aware apps and will see no real world benefit from using duals. Apple had to do it to stay competitive in their photoshop demos so they can still sell some computers to a few suckers.

Why in the world would you compare duals vs singles? For the price of Dual 1.25 G4 tower you can easily buy a better equiped dual xeon machine. The xeon machine will simply demolish the Apple tower in just about everything.

I just dont understand how they rate the cpus, if you look at their other comparisons the g3/g4 is nearly always dead last. It doesnt make much sense. Where are the lower speed G4 ranked? What type of subsystems did they use for their cpu comparison? DDR machines SDRAM machines?

Another words dont put any faith in any of these numbers. Things just dont add up right on their charts.

Yeah having a dual CPU aware OS doesn't benefit the dual CPU users.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:

that being said, I notice that almost nobody returns from the land of duals.

I don't know many Photoshop users that have. Photoshop does show a big difference when using Dual processors. If you are a heavy Photoshop user, like allot of people that buys the high end Macs, this does have it's benefits.

[nana4]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Try getting a Dual PC with Windows for the price and parts that the G4 has.

Not this again. I have already shown in prevoius posts that you can get a dual AMD system from polywell.com for half the price of a PM 1.25GHz. With a 3 year warranty. That's with winXP Pro. Dual Xeons are also available, costs more than the AMDs, but still under $3,000.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nana4:


Not this again. I have already shown in prevoius posts that you can get a dual AMD system from polywell.com for half the price of a PM 1.25GHz. With a 3 year warranty. That's with winXP Pro. Dual Xeons are also available, costs more than the AMDs, but still under $3,000.

You can get a dual AMD setup for $849 with XP pro and comparible hardware?

Wow show me where. I can make a buck or two reselling those beasts.

[Spliffdaddy]

It's all very simple to understand, this dual CPU thing.

All you gotta do is think of a CPU as a taxi that carries (does a task) just one passenger at a time(a thread) and whose route is a circumnavigation of the same city block over and over again. The passengers call the dispatch office (thread scheduler, aka the OS) and ask for a taxi to pick them up. There's only one taxi and it drives around the block non-stop whether or not there are passengers to be picked up (idle thread). This is a fast taxi. It travels around the block one million two hundred and fifty thousand times every second. So you hafta figure it ain't no Dodge Neon, right? Anyways, that taxi is hauling ass around the block empty, vacant and devoid of passengers as Al Gore's thought process - when suddenly the phone rings at the dispatch office. Lo and behold we have a passenger named mail.app who needs a ride. The very next time the taxi circles the block, it picks up mail.app and turns off the rooftop sign. no vacancy until mail.app gets where he's going. If mail.app falls asleep and forgets to get off when the taxi passes his destination, the dispatch office (task scheduler, OS) will notice this and take appropriate measures (kill the unresponsive task) and boot the passenger. The taxi driver (CPU) cannot make these decisions, only the dispatch office can.
Let's say mail.app was sober and got where he was going without incident. We have an empty taxi circling the block (idle). But wait. TWO phones ring simultaneously at the dispatch office. Holy cow. Which passenger do we pick up first? Is one of them a pregnant woman trying to make it to the hospital in time for the birth of her child? If that's the case, you'd certainly want to give priority to the pregnant woman (DVD writing app), as opposed to the man that's heading to a local pub for a couple of pre-game brewskies (porn download). The dispatch office notes the plight of the pregnant woman and orders the taxi to pick her up. On the way to picking her up, the taxi might just pass right by the man waiting to go the pub. whoosh. The woman has priority, sorry, buddy. You'll get a ride the next time around.

One day, there was a Shriners convention (RC5) in town staying in the biggest hotel on the block. There were WAY more passengers than the taxi could handle. The dispatch office was inundated with requests for taxi rides. Good thing the employees at the dispatch office were educated at Unix University, else there would be chaos (Win98). Anyhow, all requests from the Shriners were placed in a queue to wait there turn for a ride - AND assigned "low-priority" status. Normal-priority passengers like mail.app wouldn't have to wait in the same queue as a Shriner from the hotel. The pregnant woman wouldn't have to wait in ANY queue because her priority was considered "high" (aka the Terminal window). A street thug with a handgun (realtime priority) could override all other passenger requests and their priorities indefinitely. It's up to the passenger to leave when he feels like exiting the taxi. There's nothing the dispatch office can do about it (reboot time if passenger NEVER gets off).
The taxi stays busy continously. Shriners taking every empty seat not taken by normal passengers. But wait. The Shriners got tired of waiting and bribed the employees at the dispatch office. Now the Shriners get "high-priority" service. Normal passengers have to wait longer to get a ride. Not forever, mind you, as the lower priority passengers will eventually get reassigned to higher priority the longer they wait...if the dispatch office is paying attention, that is.
Since the taxi is typically empty at any given moment - barring Shriner conventions, etc - most passengers don't wait long for a ride. A taxi that was twice as fast (2.5GHz) would make a significant difference in the daily lives of the passengers...but having two slower ones (1.25GHz) only benefits them if there are more than two passengers at a time needing a ride. However, when the Shriner convention is in town, it would be nice to have a dedicated taxi to meet their needs and another taxi to serve the normal passengers (a single taxi that was twice as fast as two slower ones would be recommended, however) - The 'next available' taxi could pick up the next scheduled passenger - or both taxis could independently operate, with one dedicated to the hotel (idle) unless otherwise needed.

Note:

If there's only one thread executing at a given time, assigning it 'high priority' will result in zero improvement in performance. Might as well leave it assigned at as 'idle' or 'low' priority, since it'll get the same treatment. Almost EVERY app is assigned normal priority by default. Apps that are meant to be less intrusive (RC5, for example) will be low or idle priority by default. Any other 'normal priority' thread will execute before the low priority one will. Most benchmark apps show no improvement in scores when you run them at higher priorities - simply for the fact that very few or no other threads are executing at any given moment anyways.

again, word up Pojo

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:


You can get a dual AMD setup for $849 with XP pro and comparible hardware?

Wow show me where. I can make a buck or two reselling those beasts.

You certainly can make a buck or two.

For some strange reason a dual Athlon is the fastest thing around and it's alo the cheapest. On top of that, almost nobody will sell you one.

It can be done for under $900 easily, but $1500 will get you something droolworthy.

[Zimphire]

Spliff could you point me to a $900 dual AMD machine that is comparable or even better than a dual 867mhz G4?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Spliff could you point me to a $900 dual AMD machine that is comparable or even better than a dual 867mhz G4?

Yes. indeed.

I built one for less than that.

You would never admit it was "comparable" even though there's nothing Apple makes that can beat it in ANY benchmark. and it runs Linux - not Windows.

[Spliffdaddy]

Tyan Tiger mobo $125

pair of Xp1600s = $110

512MB RAM = $135

100GB 7200rpm harddrive = $110

Soundblaster 5.1 audio = $32

ATI Radeon 9000 with TV and DVI outputs = $75

Firewire expansion card = $not much

NIC = $not much

wireless ethernet = $79

I'm at about $600 not including the '$not much' categories, the case, and the OS. $300 is plenty of loot to finish - with Combodrive.

happy now?

[Spliffdaddy]

oh. wait

You want to buy the whole thing assembled for you?

Send me $900 and I'll send you a dual Athlon that will be comparable to a DP867.

I ain't afraid of a screwdriver.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Tyan Tiger mobo $125

pair of Xp1600s = $110

512MB RAM = $135

100GB 7200rpm harddrive = $110

Soundblaster 5.1 audio = $32

ATI Radeon 9000 with TV and DVI outputs = $75

Firewire expansion card = $not much

NIC = $not much

wireless ethernet = $79

I'm at about $600 not including the '$not much' categories, the case, and the OS. $300 is plenty of loot to finish - with Combodrive.

happy now?

The not much actually is going to cost you. Decent Firewire cards are not that cheap around $100 for a dual firewire card. (6 pin not 4 pin)

And a gig ethernet car isn't as cheap as a 10/100

And where is the super drive? That easily ads another $400 atleast.

Warranty?

The Case?

Optical Mouse and a decent Keyboard?

It actually = out to about the same as a G4, if not a bit more.

[Spliffdaddy]

yes. I can see how wrong I was.

I appreciate your persistence.

The dual G4 is an outstanding value compared to a dual Athlon.

That makes 2 people in the world who believe it.

Lets go out and convince the other couple billion unenlightened folks to see the light, shall we?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
yes. I can see how wrong I was.

I appreciate your persistence.

The dual G4 is an outstanding value compared to a dual Athlon.

That makes 2 people in the world who believe it.

Lets go out and convince the other couple billion unenlightened folks to see the light, shall we?

*Gets out knife and scrapes all the condesending goodness off shoe*

All I was showing is, add all those parts together, and it's going to be about the same as a dual G4. Meaning they aren't really overpriced. You are pretty much getting what you payed for.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Spliff you gave up WAY too soon!

The not much actually is going to cost you. Decent Firewire cards are not that cheap around $100 for a dual firewire card. (6 pin not 4 pin)

$100 for a Firewire card? I paid $18-$22 for the Firewire cards in my PCs, with 3 external 6-pin ports and 1 internal- is there even such a thing as a 4 pin Firewire card?)
Never, repeat, never had a problem with Firewire on any of my PCs- not video capture, not storage, not speed, not anything. But hey, if someone feels the *need* to spend another $80 on Firewire cards just for th heck of it... go for it!

And a gig ethernet car isn't as cheap as a 10/100

Except at work, personally I don't need gigabit Ethernet, as I don't use a gigabit hub or router. Most people I know, mostly working pros, don't have gigabit network equipment in their house and 10/100 suits them fine. Even so, a gigabit card can be had for around $135 or so.

edit- oops forgot to mention, one of the reasons I don't need gigabit ethernet, is because with my PCs I have full speed out of the box Firewire networking.

And where is the super drive? That easily ads another $400 atleast.

Cake and eat it too-- busted!

So the addition of a superdrive adds $400 to a PC... but adds (roughly) $600 to the price of the Mac! (I'm subtracting a $200 from that for another 266mhz worth of processors, 20 more gigs of storage and the 167mhz rather than 133mhz system bus.)

Trying to play fast and loose with the fact that a $1700 G4 doesn't come with a Superdrive also there Zim? (At least last time I checked one didn't!)

Warranty?

Every piece of PC hardware I personally have ever bought, has come with its own warranty. I've never used nor needed an overall warranty for a system as a whole. Hard drive fails? Replace it. Video card? Ditto. Mobo? ditto. Actually I've only ever had to replace a failed Western Digital HD on one of my PCs- but also had a Maxtor crap out on a G4 as well. Proving? Always go with IBM no matter what platform!

The Case?

Add in $35-$150 or so.. I still think Spliff will do pretty good on pricing factoring the case in.

Optical Mouse and a decent Keyboard?

What's a decent keyboard? One that costs a lot for no good reason? Matter of personal pref. more than anything. Me, Never more than $60 total for both. (Around $30 each- and that's pushing it quite a bit... typing this on an $18 wireless keyboard).

It actually = out to about the same as a G4, if not a bit more.

I'd like to know how you figure that, since Spliff's pricing is still hovering down around the $700-$800 range and if count the fact that you upped the ante with the Superdrive- you just set the final price range up to $2500. I'd say Spliff has quite a bit more shopping to do before coming anywhere near 'a bit more' than the G4.

[Spliffdaddy]

Here's a comparable machine to what Apple offers on their base DP867 - as shown on the Apple Store priced at $1699
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPL....3.1.1.0?42,10

In all aspects the one below is as good and in most aspects, it is superior. No, firewire expansion cards are not expensive. The very same 'firewire' chipset Apple uses is what I chose for this particular machine. The very same gigabit ethernet, as well.


256mb pc2100 ddr = $44

60GB harddrive = $72

Combo drive Toshiba 16x10x40CDRW / 12xDVD combodrive = $87

Video card = DVI + TV-Out, GeForce 4 MX440, 4X AGP, 64MB DDR = $77

Tyan Tiger = $165

AthlonMP 1.2GHz x 2 = $140

Heatsinks x 2 = $45

Firewire = 3 Port(External) + 1 Port(Internal)(share), 6-pin connectors, Hot plugging = $22.95

Audio = Soundblaster 5.1

Keyboard/mouse = Logitech Cordless Keyboard and mouseman wheel mouse = $76

Modem = 56K Lucent chipset = $9

Ethernet = Gigabit 1000Mbs NIC LAN Card, Over Copper.Auto Negotiation Supports Full-duplex mode, 20/200/2000 NWay. = $44.85

Case = Aluminum 18x7.825x16(DxWxH),4X5.25bay,3X3.25bay, 2case fans included,Dual USB/Firewire /audio-mic jack, (460W NOW) = $110

Operating system = Microsoft Windows XP Professional - OEM Full Version Disk ONLY, no Manual = $139


Total $1031.80

All components have at least a one-year warranty from manufacturer.


If you stop here, you can assemble it and load the OS in one afternoon saving yourself $650 over the cost of a DP867.

or

For an additional $300 I will personally assemble and warranty the above described machine for a period of three years - following the same warranty procedures as Apple does.

Your cost = $1331.80

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
[B]
$100 for a Firewire card? I paid $18-$22 for the Firewire cards in my PCs, with 3 external 6-pin ports and 1 internal-

Wow impressive, I would like one for my parents XP box, got a url?

is there even such a thing as a 4 pin Firewire card?)

Yup, they wont power the equipment. Like say a iPod. That Gateway on the iMac commercial comes with said type of firewire.

Never, repeat, never had a problem with Firewire on any of my PCs- not video capture, not storage, not speed, not anything. But hey, if someone feels the *need* to spend another $80 on Firewire cards just for th heck of it... go for it!

I didn't figure you would. Firewire is really cool no matter the card.

Except at work, personally I don't need gigabit Ethernet, as I don't use a gigabit hub or router. Most people I know, mostly working pros, don't have gigabit network equipment in their house and 10/100 suits them fine. Even so, a gigabit card can be had for around $135 or so.

Doesn't matter the need, it's still apart of the cost.

Cake and eat it too-- busted!

Eh?

So the addition of a superdrive adds $400 to a PC... but adds (roughly) $600 to the price of the Mac!

I was guessing around $400 but actually it is around $499.

(I'm subtracting a $200 from that for another 133mhz worth of processor,

Which makes them about equal.

20 more gigs of storage and the 167mhz rather than 133mhz system bus.)

Again, the machines are going to be about the same speed.

Trying to play fast and loose with the fact that a $1700 G4 doesn't come with a Superdrive also there Zim? (At least last time I checked one didn't!)

Your right, the Combo drive (DVD/CD-RW) will run you about $200.

Every piece of PC hardware I personally have ever bought, has come with its own warranty. I've never used nor needed an overall warranty for a system as a whole. Hard drive fails? Replace it. Video card? Ditto. Mobo? ditto. Actually I've only ever had to replace a failed Western Digital HD on one of my PCs- but also had a Maxtor crap out on a G4 as well. Proving? Always go with IBM no matter what platform!

I've heard horror stories about IBM drives. Nevre had a problem with any Maxters. ANd just because you never needed as warranty on a over all system again doesn't still factor in the price.

Add in $35-$150 or so.. I still think Spliff will do pretty good on pricing factoring the case in.

It will come to a little over a grand.

What's a decent keyboard? One that costs a lot for no good reason? Matter of personal pref. more than anything. Me, Never more than $60 total for both. (Around $30 each- and that's pushing it quite a bit... typing this on an $18 wireless keyboard).

Eh, a comfortable non-clicky keyboard with good action is a must for me. Apple's pro keyboard is better than the average keyboard I have used at your local CompUSA store. Again, factors in cost here, doesn't matter what you do or don't need.

I'd like to know how you figure that, since Spliff's pricing is still hovering down around the $700-$800 range and if count the fact that you upped the ante with the Superdrive- you just set the final price range up to $2500. I'd say Spliff has quite a bit more shopping to do before coming anywhere near 'a bit more' than the G4.

I figured it to be a little over a grand.
Giving quality of parts with quality of parts. Adding on how much a years warranty on a computer would be, etc.

Most OEMs don't have to pay for R&D either.

[Spliffdaddy]

add $32 for the soundblaster 5.1 card - it was omitted

PS, all of my prices included shipping costs and were current, available, and in-stock.

I dunno where you get your hardware, Zimph, but it sounds like Macy's.

[Zimphire]

Combo drive Toshiba 16x10x40CDRW / 12xDVD combodrive = $87

Is that a optical drive? � sarcasm trademark

Operating system = Microsoft Windows XP Professional - OEM Full Version Disk ONLY, no Manual = $139

Being that you buy your hardware for the same place. XP usually costs much more than that. I want to see where you can get XP professional for $139 with the system you are talking about.



Total $1031.80

All components have at least a one-year warranty from manufacturer.[/quote]
Right and that isn't HALF the price of a G4 like I was asking about, but ok. I come with more like $1200.

For an additional $300 I will personally assemble and warranty the above described machine for a period of three years - following the same warranty procedures as Apple does.

Your cost = $1331.80 [/B]

And that is about $300 less. Still not the half the price I was looking for.

Like I said, they are about the same price. I am payng a little over $300 so I wont have to use Windows.

I am willing to do that.

[Edited to appease SpiffDaddy]

[Spliffdaddy]

"Is that an optical drive?"


I only suspected up until now, but that comment tells me you honestly don't know much about computer hardware.

and I ain't here to educate you, either.

[Spliffdaddy]

*still shaking his head in disbelief*


you wasted a lot of people's time, Zimph.

scat, young grasshopper.

[wingdo]

Originally posted by euphras:
I still think you have to compare single processors. If you bench a G4 dual against a dual Athlon system, then.........................well the numbers wont be looking so good...

What OS was used to test the 1.25 G4?

OS 9 doesn't take advantage of the DP unless the application is specifically written to do so.

OS X is a true pre-emptive system which will hinder the results somewhat.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
"Is that an optical drive?"


I only suspected up until now, but that comment tells me you honestly don't know much about computer hardware.

and I ain't here to educate you, either.

That was called sarcasm.

next time I will lable all my sarcasm with a or a ;-)

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by wingdo:


What OS was used to test the 1.25 G4?

OS 9 doesn't take advantage of the DP unless the application is specifically written to do so.

OS X is a true pre-emptive system which will hinder the results somewhat.

I am sure OS X. Probably 10.1 though.