[bentoon]

I am waiting to here what the dual dual feels like, I agree it seems more like a rev A machine.
It is also a little ptricey for me, but I might do the Apple pay as you go plan. (though in the end it is more expensive) - has anyone done their payment plan?
I will be starting to do HD video in a couple of months ( though I will need the machine before for other video work) and
from what I have gathered from this list:
1) it seems that people are expecting the Nvidia 7800 soon. It seems very comprable, but what do you think the price might be? Did someone say around 400$ was their guess. Will it mater a lot for HD work which I have? Given that other video cards are also out there. It seems that I could have the card that comes with and install a 7800 or another card later, Given that you can have a variety of Video card Yes? they don't conflict. Maybe get the built ion now and the 7800 later, not from Apple, would be the cheapest

2) Also I expect that for what I am doing it is best to have EEC SDram. _ So I was thinking of getting 1 Gig to come with and adding more later - but is seems that it may be best to get it with the regular 512 it comes with and replace that with EEC SDRam from Crucial, and take a loss with the Apple Ram

3( because I will be needing a lot od storage too) I am thinking of the 500 dreive - because I will still have one othe slot left. a 250 would limit my expandability and having interrnal drives as opposed to external seems to make a big diff n this case....But perhaps what I might do is put another larger drive in later and then if I must, resort to externals

I am just trying to get the price down to something managable that I can work with.
I thought about the dual 2.7 but it's really not that much cheaper now, Getting a lower end G5 now, likewise seems pricey in comparison to a stripped down dual dual

[mduell]

Originally Posted by bentoon

I am waiting to here what the dual dual feels like, I agree it seems more like a rev A machine.
It is also a little ptricey for me, but I might do the Apple pay as you go plan. (though in the end it is more expensive) - has anyone done their payment plan?
I will be starting to do HD video in a couple of months ( though I will need the machine before for other video work) and
from what I have gathered from this list:
1) it seems that people are expecting the Nvidia 7800 soon. It seems very comprable, but what do you think the price might be? Did someone say around 400$ was their guess. Will it mater a lot for HD work which I have? Given that other video cards are also out there. It seems that I could have the card that comes with and install a 7800 or another card later, Given that you can have a variety of Video card Yes? they don't conflict. Maybe get the built ion now and the 7800 later, not from Apple, would be the cheapest

2) Also I expect that for what I am doing it is best to have EEC SDram. _ So I was thinking of getting 1 Gig to come with and adding more later - but is seems that it may be best to get it with the regular 512 it comes with and replace that with EEC SDRam from Crucial, and take a loss with the Apple Ram

3) because I will be needing a lot od storage too) I am thinking of the 500 dreive - because I will still have one othe slot left. a 250 would limit my expandability and having interrnal drives as opposed to external seems to make a big diff n this case....But perhaps what I might do is put another larger drive in later and then if I must, resort to externals

1) On the PC side, the 7800GT is about $220 more than the 6600, so I'd expect the upgrade to be $300-350 from Apple. I think this upgrade is worth the wait, because the future video editing suite will undoubtedly make use of Core Image/Video.

2) Unless you're doing renders that take a few days, I really don't see why you would need ECC (nor the associated performance penalty). Go with the stock 512MB from Apple and add as much as you can afford from Crucial (for HD video, I'd reccommend adding 2x1GB minimum).

3) Even a 500GB drive will only hold about 20 hours of DVCPRO50 content, so I would expect you will need more storage than you can fit inside your PowerMac anyway. I'd stay with the 250GB internal, install a larger disk (400-500GB) yourself, and plan on having a few external disks around.

[bentoon]

Thanks Mark,
once again you are a wealth of good advice (you helped me aquire a Dell 24 inch LCD that I love) !
Gracias,
John

[CatOne]

Ima gonna git one.

Gonna name 'er Quadzilla.

[G5man]

the person who asked the Quadro FX 4500 upgrade for 1500? well I can somewhat answer that, it is a better quality graphics card than the GeForce 6800 GT and also it is on PCI Expresss. Also it can be a matter of manufacturing price. However, it is probably because it is a professional user graphics card.

[heavyboots]

Originally Posted by davidahn

Heavyboots, nudge-nudge, wink-wink, you're making us wade in some heavy CRAP. Maybe dual 2.7s might get bumped to quad 2.5's; but receiving it already, 2 days after announcement... please! Give us a break!

Now now, just because I wandered off to Resume Real Life...

Here's a link to shots of the back and the power cord. Tiger is upgrading on it right now. I finally gave up last night after I realized it still had about 50gb to copy and it was 11pm. I'll post a Cinebench a couple-four hours hence (and some REAL benchmarks too--ie, UT2k4! ).

Sadly, my quad-compatible RAM does not arrive until Monday, so these will be with 512mb RAM instead of 1.5gb. So much for ordering the RAM ahead so it would be ready to install when the machine arrived!

As for how I got it so soon, I had a backorder with ClubMac for a 2.3ghz last week. It got upgraded. Plus, ClubMac's shipping warehouse is in Tennessee so their two-day FedEx's sometimes only take one day (FedEx hub is there).

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by heavyboots

Now now, just because I wandered off to Resume Real Life...

Here's a link to shots of the back and the power cord.

--

As for how I got it so soon, I had a backorder with ClubMac for a 2.3ghz last week. It got upgraded. Plus, ClubMac's shipping warehouse is in Tennessee so their two-day FedEx's sometimes only take one day (FedEx hub is there).

Apple has not released a quad-core 2.3. It sounds like they upgraded your dual 970FX 2.3 Power Mac with a single 970MP 2.3 Power Mac (which is still a nice upgrade).

I'll post a Cinebench a couple-four hours hence (and some REAL benchmarks too--ie, UT2k4! ).

Looking forward to it. Too bad we'll have to wait on the quad benches though.

[G5man]

it is really too bad that these new powermacs dont have a dual dual link card that only takes up one slot and they do not have two 16 lane slots then you could literally get a SLI going

[mduell]

Originally Posted by G5man

it is really too bad that these new powermacs dont have a dual dual link card that only takes up one slot and they do not have two 16 lane slots then you could literally get a SLI going

You can do SLI with two 8x PCIe slots; some of the budget boards do this so they can get away with a 20-lane PCIe controller. But Apple doesn't appear to support SLI.

[heavyboots]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Apple has not released a quad-core 2.3. It sounds like they upgraded your dual 970FX 2.3 Power Mac with a single 970MP 2.3 Power Mac (which is still a nice upgrade).

Arrrgh! Yep, you're right. Single processor/dual-core. My bad...

EDIT: Cinebench below...

Code:
CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester           : Heavyboots

Processor        : G5 Single Processor "Dual-Core"
MHz              : 2.3ghz
Number of CPUs   : 2
Operating System : 10.4.2

Graphics Card    : NVidia 6600 256mb
Resolution       : 1280x960
Color Depth      : 32-bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single   CPU): 325 CB-CPU 
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 541 CB-CPU 

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.66

Shading (CINEMA 4D)                : 324 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 970 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1787 CB-GFX 

OpenGL Speedup: 5.51

****************************************************

And my old dual processor/single-core 2.3ghz, just for kicks and grins. Unfortunately, it's nowhere near an exact match because I'm running 10.3.9 on the old machine and I have an ATI 9600 card. But it looks like basically, the dual-core does indeed come out slightly ahead! Very nice...

Code:
CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester           : Heavyboots

Processor        : G5 Dual Processor "Single Core"
MHz              : 2.3ghz
Number of CPUs   : 2
Operating System : 10.3.9

Graphics Card    : ATI 9600 128mb
Resolution       : 1280x960
Color Depth      : 32-bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single   CPU): 329 CB-CPU 
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 539 CB-CPU 

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.64

Shading (CINEMA 4D)                : 314 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 875 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1580 CB-GFX 

OpenGL Speedup: 5.03

****************************************************

[Eug Wanker]

Thanks for the test. Your results are basically identical...

Single core 2.3 970FX: 325
Single core 2.3 970MP: 329

Both cores 2.3 970FX: 541
Both cores 2.3 970MP: 539

[jamil5454]

However, the video card results are interesting.

ATI 9600 OpenGL Hardware: 1580
Nvidia 6600 OpenGL Hardware: 1787


I was expecting the difference to be higher. Anyway, does your new machine chirp?

[heavyboots]

Originally Posted by jamil5454

I was expecting the difference to be higher. Anyway, does your new machine chirp?

Not that I'm noticing, but I'm in a room with an XServe 6 ft away.

Anyway, here's the last of my benchmark fun, UT2k4:

[html]ANTALUS BOTMATCH
Dual chip 2.3/ATI 9600 128mb Dual-core 2.3/NVidia 6600 256mb
Score(min/max/avg) Score(min/max/avg)
1024x768 min 65.2 (25.7/167.6/63.8) 71.9 (23.6/184.9/80.2)
1024x768 max 36.6 (16.7/ 88.8/36.6) 52.1 (11.0/119.6/52.4)
1600x1200 min 32.3 (17.8/ 72.0/32.2) 63.2 (24.3/131.7/63.7)
1600x1200 max 15.6 ( 6.4/ 68.3/15.6) 35.5 ( 8.2/ 92.0/35.5)

ANATALUS FLYBY
Dual chip 2.3/ATI 9600 128mb Dual-core 2.3/NVidia 6600 256mb
Score(min/max/avg) Score(min/max/avg)
1024x768 min 80.0 (60.6/305.2/111.3) 80.0 (75.5/572.2/193.6)
1024x768 max 70.0 (45.0/176.1/ 71.6) 79.9 (57.6/381.7/121.2)
1600x1200 min 36.7 (27.1/ 91.7/ 36.7) 78.2 (53.9/236.2/ 86.8)
1600x1200 max 26.4 (20.4/ 66.2/ 26.4) 59.5 (42.8/165.1/ 59.8)[/html]

EDIT: Bah! Bloody stupid CODE tag is worthless! This is as close to ascii table formatting as I'm getting, it looks like, and it's actually a cheat to force it to think it's wrapping html...

[mduell]

Originally Posted by heavyboots

Arrrgh! Yep, you're right. Single processor/dual-core. My bad...

EDIT: Cinebench below...

Code:
CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************
Processor        : G5 Single Processor "Dual-Core"
MHz              : 2.3ghz
Number of CPUs   : 2
Operating System : 10.4.2
Graphics Card    : NVidia 6600 256mb
****************************************************
Shading (CINEMA 4D)                : 324 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 970 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1787 CB-GFX 
OpenGL Speedup: 5.51
****************************************************

Code:
CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************
Processor        : G5 Dual Processor "Single Core"
MHz              : 2.3ghz
Number of CPUs   : 2
Operating System : 10.3.9
Graphics Card    : ATI 9600 128mb
****************************************************
Shading (CINEMA 4D)                : 314 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 875 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1580 CB-GFX 
OpenGL Speedup: 5.03
****************************************************

Originally Posted by jamil5454

However, the video card results are interesting.

ATI 9600 OpenGL Hardware: 1580
Nvidia 6600 OpenGL Hardware: 1787

How can your video card performance possibly be that slow?!?

My Mobility X300 64MB gets the following:
************************************************** **
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 297 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1269 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2318 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 7.80
************************************************** **

Is the problem just with Cinebench on OSX, or is it a general performance debacle for OpenGL on OSX?

[heavyboots]

Originally Posted by mduell

How can your video card performance possibly be that slow?!?

My Mobility X300 64MB gets the following:
************************************************** **
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 297 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1269 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2318 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 7.80
************************************************** **

Is the problem just with Cinebench on OSX, or is it a general performance debacle for OpenGL on OSX?

Well, I leave that to others to decide. It's pretty much in line with what BareFeats got when they tested a 2.5ghz with a GeForce 6800, so...

[oni]

PC's always score massively higher in that benchmark when it comes to the vid card. I remember reading somewhere that the Maxon used some kind of optimising trick on windows that is not availabel on the mac

[slider]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

The general concensus is that the Intel switch is happening because of the following two reasons;

1) With Freescale/Motorola out of the picture as a serious provider of PowerPCs for Macs, Apple felt boxed in as far as notebooks and small form factor machines go since neither of these types of machines have really been a concern of IBM's when designing processors. IBM's bread and butter is mainframes and servers, which only benefits Apple on the Power Mac front. But with notebooks now outselling desktops, notebooks have become a larger focus for Apple than ever.

2) Steve threw a fit because IBM isn't super-motivated to crank out the custom-tailored 'best processors in the world' that Apple wants. Reason being that as large of a company as Apple is, they still only account for around 5% of IBM's total microprocessor sales. However, development of processors for Apple accounts for a significantly larger percentage of IBM's total R&D for microprocessors (I've heard more than 20%).

I'm opposed to the switch. IBM, on the whole, has had better offerings than Intel across the board on the desktop/server front for years and the PowerPC ISA is far and away a better architecture than x86 is. And with the foundation of OS X being as 'portable' as it is, there's no reason why Apple couldn't continue using IBM's PowerPCs for Xserves and Power Macs and reserve the Intel switch for the only lines that actually need it; the portables.

In fact, I'm hoping they will do so.

Yeah, anything can happen in 2 years. This universal binaries thing has far more benefits than just transitioning to a different chip. Additionally, if Apple did decide to keep IBM chips for PowerMacs, it would encourage developers to keep building universal binaries for both processors. My one concern when SJ first introded this whole concept to the world was the option to build for PowerPC, Mactel, or Both, I didn't like that there was an option to not select PowerPC.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Thanks for the test. Your results are basically identical...

Single core 2.3 970FX: 325
Single core 2.3 970MP: 329

Both cores 2.3 970FX: 541
Both cores 2.3 970MP: 539

BTW, is that with the G5 version? The scores seem OK, but perhaps slightly low for 2.3 GHz.

[blackwind]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

BTW, is that with the G5 version? The scores seem OK, but perhaps slightly low for 2.3 GHz.

I'm pretty sure that is with the G5 version. A 2-GHz G5 scored 221/403 with normal Cinebench, so it is unlikely that a 2.3-GHz G5 would break 254/463 in the old Cinebench. It is more likely that the "networking=lower score" problem with Cinebench is manifesting itself.

[Gregory]

This just made previous G5s like the 2.0DP PCI-X 'affordable' @ $1499 from Apple Specials page. I like to stay one step (or two) behind bleeding - and wait for ATTO's UL5D and something from ATI (which has a lot of PCIe cards in development).

Apple could have offered PCI-X and PCIe easy enough, but didn't.
ECC: long over-due.
1000W PSU? I think I need to run a new line from the circuit breaker. Even my RS1500 won't handle that kind of load.

[ScottEllsworth]

The Macintels will not make a big difference to PPC desktop machines for a while - AltiVec is still pretty keen, and the cpu speeds are not _that_ much better on the Intel side.

They will make a big difference to portables, as Apple is getting eaten alive in the portable/mini space.

Further, the massive number crunching apps like MATLAB and Photoshop will probably take a while to convert efficiently, so it is good if Apple's high end hardware runs them well. Since that _has_ to be PPC, probably for the best that what app vendors are now making will continue to work well on the best Apple has.

Originally Posted by slider

My one concern when SJ first introded this whole concept to the world was the option to build for PowerPC, Mactel, or Both, I didn't like that there was an option to not select PowerPC.

The way the tools are designed, it would have been reasonable difficult to _require_ universal binaries without a ppc-only option, as then Rosetta would never launch. Given that Intel was optional, PPC kind of had to become optional as well.

Frankly, I would not worry about that. App vendors do not want to lose sales, so they will probably want universal binaries as soon as possible to get access to the new portable market, but they will also want them to run well on PPC. Thus, Intel-only is not likely to happen soon.

Scott

[mduell]

Originally Posted by ScottEllsworth

Further, the massive number crunching apps like MATLAB and Photoshop will probably take a while to convert efficiently, so it is good if Apple's high end hardware runs them well.

MATLAB, Photoshop, and the rest are already highly optimized for x86 in the Windows version. Combining the OSX-front end (which is very little of the product) with the already optimized back-end shouldn't take long.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by blackwind

I'm pretty sure that is with the G5 version. A 2-GHz G5 scored 221/403 with normal Cinebench, so it is unlikely that a 2.3-GHz G5 would break 254/463 in the old Cinebench. It is more likely that the "networking=lower score" problem with Cinebench is manifesting itself.

You're probably right. My 2.0 GHz iMac gets 275.

[bentoon]

I can barely wait for the Nvidia 7800 to be an option on the dual duals...
What am I gonna do?
buy it later and install it myself? is there anybenefit having these two card? No...
Dang...WTF...I have a feeling it's gonna make me wait for at least 6 weeks...
I dunno if I can hold out,
(although these things aren't even shipping yet)
...So what am I complaining about?
what about comprable cards for HD Video? I don't think they are as good as what I see about the Nvidia 7800

[themexican]

I spent part of my Saturday playing with a Quad/Aperture at the Photo Expo here in NYC. Even though I'm a hardware junky I didn't expect to be be blown away, but I was. These things just fly. I was tossing around 100meg images like they were icons. Of course these machines had healthy RAM allotments (4gig) and fast drives, but still....

I generally try to hold off on buying until a machine feels twice as fast as my current one. Right now I have a single processor 1.8. I think it's time to plunk down some change. The other justification is Aperture. Sure it will run on lesser machines, but using it on a Quad was sheer joy. It will save countless hours of workflow bs. My order is in.

[KeyLimePi]

Originally Posted by bentoon

What am I gonna do?
buy it later and install it myself? is there anybenefit having these two card? No...

I'm only driving a 23" ACD, and primarily using Final Cut and Photoshop, so I decided that I would go with the stock 6600 Nv card and see what I think. I don't do any 3D work, and I 'm not what you'd call a hardcore gamer (anything over 60fps is usually enough for me).

If the 7800 becomes available aftermarket I might get one and pull my card out for sale on eBay. I just don't think it's worth waiting weeks or even months to for a difference I might not even notice.

[heavyboots]

Just to send one last reply that, yes, the benchmarks came from the G5 version of Cinebench. Basically, it feels exactly like my old computer (except that I'm running Tiger so the menus react faster).

Also... OMG! They actually got rid of the "ethernet" squeal. How the heck am I gonna know when someone is copy files to/from my computer now? (I caught a guy stealing my 50gb iTunes library that way one time.)

[dantewaters]

Originally Posted by awcopus

Iit's incompatible with my dual 2.5's 8GB of memory and my Sonnet Tempo PCI-X SATA 4+4 card and my ATTO SCSI card (which I need to create professional DVDs via DLT masters).

You put your masters on DLT how well does that work for you, can you explain the whole process??

[Moon Potato]

If you're satisfied with the selection of software out for OSX now, then it's probably a good idea to buy. If you're going to have this as your main computer for more than a couple years, and will want access to all the latest and greatest software, then I'd wait for the Intel powermacs.

[dr. zoidberg]

well, first i'd figure that it will take a good while until the "latest and greatest" software is actually there for OS X intel ... plus, it will take a good tad longer until fat binaries fade out in favour for intel-only software. so i have the feeling that this will be 4 years minimum from now ... so i'm not afraid when i will be ordering my IBM-baser powermac shortly, because 4 years is a pretty long lifespan for a machine anyway (at least for a power-user like myself).