|
|
The Official Mac Pro Thread (Page 4)
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by waxcrash
What I find interesting is the fastest quad Xeon you can buy from Dell has the 3.73GHz dual core 5080, yet Apple only offers the 3Ghz 5050 chip. How long until Apple offers the faster processors?
Those Xeons aren't Woodcrest, the Core 2 architecture chip in the Mac Pro. Intel just confusingly kept the name. The fastest Woodcrest available is 3 GHz.
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Chuckit
Those Xeons aren't Woodcrest, the Core 2 architecture chip in the Mac Pro. Intel just confusingly kept the name. The fastest Woodcrest available is 3 GHz.
So they make dual core Xeons and dual core Xeons with Core 2 architecture?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern VA
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
iMac 24" | Core 2 Extreme 2.8GHz | 4GB RAM | 500GB HD
PowerBook G4 15" HR | 1.67GHz | 2GB RAM | 100GB HD
R.I.P 1995 Toyota Supra NA-T
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by waxcrash
So they make dual core Xeons and dual core Xeons with Core 2 architecture?
Yes.
|
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by waxcrash
So they make dual core Xeons and dual core Xeons with Core 2 architecture?
The 50xx series Xeons are based on the NetBurst microarchitecture (Pentium 4).
The 51xx series Xeons are based on the Core microarchitecture (Core 2 Duo).
The confusing part is that Core Duo is not a Core microachitecutre part; it's based on the Pentium M.
Originally Posted by Velocity211
That one catagory (fill rate) is the weakest link in the chain for the two games Apple lists; also note that Apple appears to be using nonstandard clockrates on both video cards.
The Quadro supports a number of additional professional-level features that the X1900 (a "gamer" card) does not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status:
Offline
|
|
I find it kind of interesting that Bluetooth and Airport Extreme don't appear to be standard. Has that always been the case with the Power Mac?
|
"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by waxcrash
So they make dual core Xeons and dual core Xeons with Core 2 architecture?
The offerings from Dell in your image are the "Dempsey" processors, not "Woodcrest."
Dempsey differs from Woodcrest in the following ways:
Dempsey has 2MB L2 per core, whereas Woodcrest has 4MB shared between two cores.
Dempsey offers FSB no faster than 1066MHz, whereas Woodcrest offers up to 1333MHz FSB.
TDP of Dempsey is higher (95W-130W) compared to Woodcrest's 65W-80W TDP.
There may be other differences, but I didn't design the chips.
|
PowerBook G4 17-inch 1GHz (March 2003)
iBook G4 12-inch 1.33GHz (July 2005)
iMac 20-inch 2.0GHz Intel Core Duo (January 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mduell
The 50xx series Xeons are based on the NetBurst microarchitecture (Pentium 4).
The 51xx series Xeons are based on the Core microarchitecture (Core 2 Duo).
The confusing part is that Core Duo is not a Core microachitecutre part; it's based on the Pentium M.
Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey
I find it kind of interesting that Bluetooth and Airport Extreme don't appear to be standard. Has that always been the case with the Power Mac?
Looking back at Apple's Power Mac G5 page, it looks like it.
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: NYC
Status:
Offline
|
|
as of the Late 2005 (dual core) G5s, Airport/BT were available only as a technician-installable communications board. Every G5 before that used a standard airport extreme card and a separate BT board, but for some reason they combined them into one non-user-installable part with the last G5s. The Mac Pro seems to differ in that they're separate modules, so you can have one, the other, or both, but they still look like they're only technician-installable, judging by the little picture on the Design page.
|
"I start fires!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Big Mac
No, Apple could please such people. They've already explained what they want. These people are looking for a single dual core MacPro at a sub-$1800 price tag. Apple just does not want to provide it because Apple would rather get fat margins than many extra sales. Dude, I ended up getting an Inspiron because of Apple's stubborness in refusing to put a graphics card in the MacBook.
the problem is that apple is basically a monopoly when it comes to macs.
i dont think its fair or right that apple is the only company that can make hardware for their O/S, because it basically puts them in complete power over everyone who likes OS X.
the processor price differences (explained earlier, the small drop for the 2.0 ghz, and large increase for 3.0 ghz) are not reasonable or fair. Apple is clearly taking advantage of the consumer.
Don't get me wrong, I love the new Mac Pro. The machine is awesome, and the way they've made it very expandable, and how nice the inside is, is really cool. The hardware on the inside looks very solid. Indeed it seems very powerful. And I think if someone has a lot of money and little technical know-how for upgrading, then the topline Mac Pro, may be a good machine for them.
But at this point there is some fishiness going on with their powermac upgrades. its like they are trying to take in bigger margins on the higher end models, so that they can make up for other expenses (like R+D) or maybe just to rake in fat profits. either way, its sick.
at least they are more customizable though. now if only the upgrade prices were fair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: NYC
Status:
Offline
|
|
here's something else i just thought of... The Mac Pro's hard drive trays with built-in SATA connectors are going to make hardware RAID impossible. There's no way to put a SATA drive in the case without connecting it to the onboard SATA controller, so using a controller card isn't an option. That's kind of a bummer for people who want to do video work that benefits from a RAID without relying on software to handle it.
edit: this is obviously speculation as i haven't actually seen a Mac Pro yet, but it seems to be the case from what i can gather from pictures.
|
"I start fires!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by BikerJonTN
The offerings from Dell in your image are the "Dempsey" processors, not "Woodcrest."
Dempsey differs from Woodcrest in the following ways:
Dempsey has 2MB L2 per core, whereas Woodcrest has 4MB shared between two cores.
Dempsey offers FSB no faster than 1066MHz, whereas Woodcrest offers up to 1333MHz FSB.
TDP of Dempsey is higher (95W-130W) compared to Woodcrest's 65W-80W TDP.
There may be other differences, but I didn't design the chips.
I think you are looking at it from a wrong angle (marketing)...
What you should be doing, is comparing similarities. Both processors are called Xeons and are made by Intel. They don't have alot in common, the whole architecture is new (like comparing a G4 and G5 by looking at L2, FSB and TDP).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by MaxPower2k3
here's something else i just thought of... The Mac Pro's hard drive trays with built-in SATA connectors are going to make hardware RAID impossible. There's no way to put a SATA drive in the case without connecting it to the onboard SATA controller, so using a controller card isn't an option. That's kind of a bummer for people who want to do video work that benefits from a RAID without relying on software to handle it.
edit: this is obviously speculation as i haven't actually seen a Mac Pro yet, but it seems to be the case from what i can gather from pictures.
The Intel 631xESB/632xESB ICHs (which are mated with all Intel 5000x chipsets AFAIK) support hardware RAID 0 and 1 if Apple included the appropriate ROMs. For internal hardware RAID 5 I think you're SOL, and you'll have to go with an eSATA/SCSI/FC solution.
See 5.18.1.5 in this PDF.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Northern California
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by MaxPower2k3
That's kind of a bummer for people who want to do video work that benefits from a RAID without relying on software to handle it.
I'm not sure, but Apple's Mac Pro pages mention RAIDs (1 and 0) several times. Are they referring to software RAIDs?
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey
I find it kind of interesting that Bluetooth and Airport Extreme don't appear to be standard.
They also appear to give a BTO configuration a 2-4 week ship time. -_-
(
Last edited by Apfhex; Aug 8, 2006 at 12:47 AM.
)
|
Mac OS X 10.5.0, Mac Pro 2.66GHz/2 GB RAM/X1900 XT, 23" ACD
esdesign
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
why does everyone want SFF so badly?? I've owned a SFF before and will never go back. Too much noise from one fan running as hard as it can. Way too much heat generated for such a small area. The only way to keep the cpu from averaging 55 C temps is to throw it in a bucket of water. Very limited room for upgrades and expansion (ram, vid card, hd). The only right way to do it is to underclock and integrate some parts via "integrated" and laptop parts. Oh wait Apple already does that! the mac mini folks.
I mean seriously think about it here. Think about the noise issues, heat, and upgrade complaints people had with the G5 and mdd G4's and multiply that by two. I thought my shuttle was great at first but you sacrifice so much and gain that little bit of space. It's not worth it at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by generationfourt
why does everyone want SFF so badly?? I've owned a SFF before and will never go back. Too much noise from one fan running as hard as it can. Way too much heat generated for such a small area. The only way to keep the cpu from averaging 55 C temps is to throw it in a bucket of water. Very limited room for upgrades and expansion (ram, vid card, hd). The only right way to do it is to underclock and integrate some parts via "integrated" and laptop parts. Oh wait Apple already does that! the mac mini folks.
I mean seriously think about it here. Think about the noise issues, heat, and upgrade complaints people had with the G5 and mdd G4's and multiply that by two. I thought my shuttle was great at first but you sacrifice so much and gain that little bit of space. It's not worth it at all.
The Mac mini is one tenth the volume of a Shuttle XPC; a lot more compromises have to be made to get there, and those compromises (2.5" HDD, slim optical, low-power CPU, no PCIe slots) are the ones that I don't want.
A Shuttle XPC is less than half the size of the Mac Pro, and it would be priced to match (half the CPUs, half the RAM, half the drives, half the price).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
anyone who complains about the price of this machine is clinically insane.. sure we dont all have $2,500 around for a new mac, but anyone who does has to appreciate the hardware they're getting for the money. this thing is ridiculous, for the quad 2.66 i was expecting at least 3k+
|
Hear and download my debut EP 'Ice Pictures' for free here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mduell
The Mac mini is one tenth the volume of a Shuttle XPC; a lot more compromises have to be made to get there, and those compromises (2.5" HDD, slim optical, low-power CPU, no PCIe slots) are the ones that I don't want.
A Shuttle XPC is less than half the size of the Mac Pro, and it would be priced to match (half the CPUs, half the RAM, half the drives, half the price).
Give me half the cpu power, half the ram, half the drives, half the price but for the love of god give me the room to upgrade as the time comes.
Im talking strictly from experience. A lot of things are sacrificed to fit something in a shuttle sized pc. Yes they are bigger than the mini but everything still has to fit like a damn puzzle peice. A lot of heat is generated because of the proximity. You will have only 2 slots for ram. Space for 1 hd. A psu that has to be handicapped. A cpu that runs too hot. I owned a shuttle for a while. All you are really doing is fighting a never ending battle against heat and noise.
And you aren't saving very much space at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London, Ontario
Status:
Offline
|
|
.....
Originally Posted by MaxPower2k3
The Mac Pro seems to differ in that they're separate modules, so you can have one, the other, or both, but they still look like they're only technician-installable, judging by the little picture on the Design page.
So will the Airport Extreme module that comes with the machine perform differently than buying a card and installing it yourself?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New York City, NY
Status:
Offline
|
|
perfect. by next summer bugs will be worked out and i'll be set for college.
|
iamwhor3hay
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by pyrite
anyone who complains about the price of this machine is clinically insane.. sure we dont all have $2,500 around for a new mac, but anyone who does has to appreciate the hardware they're getting for the money. this thing is ridiculous, for the quad 2.66 i was expecting at least 3k+
It's great value for money, sure, but.... my stuff is single threaded. One core will run my stuff, another will run all the background tasks and I'd have a whole CPU just sitting around consuming electricity for kicks. I'm not looking for a completely different cut down version of the Mac Pro, I just want the ability to buy one with only one CPU!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Piacenza (italy)
Status:
Offline
|
|
The processors used in the new Mac Pro is the Woodcrest 5150 as you ca see from dell.it under Piccole Aziende -> Workstations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: NYC
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by WizOSX
.....
So will the Airport Extreme module that comes with the machine perform differently than buying a card and installing it yourself?
You can't buy a card and install it yourself. According to the Mac Pro Developer Note:
The Mac Pro computer has an optional, internal AirPort Extreme module connected to a dedicated 1-lane PCI Express bus. The AirPort Extreme module is available as a fully-integrated configure-to-order option or as an Apple Authorized Service Provider kit, which can be installed by an Apple retail store or an Apple Authorized Service Provider.
The same goes for the Bluetooth module (although that runs off of the USB bus, not directly off of PCI-E)
|
"I start fires!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: NYC
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Apfhex
I'm not sure, but Apple's Mac Pro pages mention RAIDs (1 and 0) several times. Are they referring to software RAIDs?
You're right, I didn't see that before. They mention it twice on the Performance page. In the Video section I'm pretty sure they're talking about software RAID:
Install up to four 500GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drives for up to 2TB of internal storage and stripe them together using Mac OS X RAID for fast access to all of your digital media files.
But in the RAW Shooting section, it sounds like Hardware:
Four hard drive bays give you options. Stripe your drives in a RAID 0 to build an extra large volume of up to 2TB. Or pair two drives in a RAID 1 for redundant reliability and instant backups.
So I'm not sure... I would think they'd advertise hardware RAID support more if it's an option (especially for video), but I guess we'll see once people start getting them and messing around with the settings.
|
"I start fires!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
Not sure about the chipset being used for Woodcrest but most of the Intel chipsets released within the last couple of years offer Software RAID functionality from the Southbridge on the PC side. You can create RAID0, RAID1 and RAID5 as well as Matrix RAID which is combining different RAID arrays together.
-a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Minnesota
Status:
Offline
|
|
All I can say is Woo-hoo! I'm getting a 3.0 GHz machine with an X1900 card and 2 superdrives! I'll load up on Crucial ram when comes, and drop in my old SATA drives for extra storage. I cannot imagine how nice this machine will be on video editing! With an educational discount, this machine's price was very reasonable.
Oh, and did I mention that Apple was kind enough to throw in a 2 GB nano for free? Gotta love that educational discount!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by alligator
I'm getting a 3.0 GHz machine
<snip>
Oh, and did I mention that Apple was kind enough to throw in a 2 GB nano for free? Gotta love that educational discount!
They more than recouped the cost of the nano with the $400 they overcharged you for the 2.66->3.0Ghz upgrade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by alligator
Oh, and did I mention that Apple was kind enough to throw in a 2 GB nano for free? Gotta love that educational discount!
Are you sure your going to get the ipod for free. While it does come up when you purchase the ProMac, the fine print states all of the acceptable machines that you could buy to receive the rebate and the MacPro is not part of that list.
Also it says 30 days from purchase, if you've included the ATI card, that's a 3-5 week delay so depending on how they view purchase date may push you out of the 30 day windows (if the 5 week delay is realized).
I hate to rain on your parade, but I was debating if its worth the gamble myself.
|
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: RTP, NC
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Chuckit
Most people do want the speakers built in… (to their TVs)
If it's a simple, standalone, AIO unit - then sure. But for larger TVs, it's almost silly to have cheap little built-in speakers since 90% of people will hook it up to an amp with external (usually surround sound) speakers. In fact, most big TV's these days could really just be monitors in the sense that all they do is display an image - no tuner, no speakers, etc. Anyway, I think the analogy holds - some people what an AIO TV, some people don't - it depends on how it will be used.
|
Late 2012 27" iMac 3.4GHz Intel Core i7, 24GB RAM, 3TB Fusion drive
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Partying down with the Ewoks, after I nuked the Death Star!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Questions:
Does it come with extra heat syncs for future RAM purchases?
How will retail stores carry these models? Will they only have the 2.66 model and if you want any other speed you have to BTO it online?
|
"Hello, what have we here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm looking at the Mac Pro as a way to get rid of my Dell. The Dell serves as a PVR/DVR using a Hauppage TV tuner card. Will I be able to move this card into a PCI slot on the Mac and run it under either BootCamp or one of the virtualization products?
(The Mac products I have seen for DVRs only seem to work with analog cable/tv and cannot control and external set top box, so I don't want to buy something new when the Hauppage/BeyndTV works well. It;s the Dell that sucks.)
Will PC PCI cards work in the new Mac Pros?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by richdean
I'm looking at the Mac Pro as a way to get rid of my Dell. The Dell serves as a PVR/DVR using a Hauppage TV tuner card. Will I be able to move this card into a PCI slot on the Mac and run it under either BootCamp or one of the virtualization products?
(The Mac products I have seen for DVRs only seem to work with analog cable/tv and cannot control and external set top box, so I don't want to buy something new when the Hauppage/BeyndTV works well. It;s the Dell that sucks.)
Will PC PCI cards work in the new Mac Pros?
The Mac Pro has no PCI slots, only PCI Express, so no, you can't use your Hauppauge card.
Even if it did have the correct slot, I don't think there are OSX drivers for the Hauppauge cards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
This may be of interest to some:
After a loooong time on hold at Apple's tech support, they confirmed that the GeForce 7300 GT is supported for Aperture. The apple.com Aperture spec page does not list it. He only mentioned that a minimum of 2GB RAM be used, but this is probably recommended no matter what GPU is in use. Some references on the net confirm the '7300' moniker may be a slight misnomer as to its heritage. I will keep my fingers crossed.
I would be interested if anyone doubts the claim so I can change my order if need be. I do not play games and only need something sufficiently powerful for Aperture/Photoshop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mac128k-1984
Are you sure your going to get the ipod for free. While it does come up when you purchase the ProMac, the fine print states all of the acceptable machines that you could buy to receive the rebate and the MacPro is not part of that list.
Also it says 30 days from purchase, if you've included the ATI card, that's a 3-5 week delay so depending on how they view purchase date may push you out of the 30 day windows (if the 5 week delay is realized).
I hate to rain on your parade, but I was debating if its worth the gamble myself.
Sunny skies, no rain. Read the FAQ.
http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Im...s/bts_faq.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Santa Fe
Status:
Offline
|
|
Did anyone notice that only in the 3Ghz configuration is the Mac Pro "1.6-2 times faster"? I find it fascinating that IBM's 6 year-old technology is still competitive with Intel's latest and greatest. The G5 was a great processor that ran hot....if only IBM had transitioned more effectively we could be in a very different place today.
Hmmmm....
|
15" MBP, 2.66Ghz, 4 GB RAM
and....17" iMac C2D
and....Mac Classic II (still running well)
and.....a couple of homebuilt game machines and other ancient stuff like OS/2, BeOS, and Windows 2.0!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mduell
The Mac Pro has no PCI slots, only PCI Express, so no, you can't use your Hauppauge card.
Even if it did have the correct slot, I don't think there are OSX drivers for the Hauppauge cards.
Ah, got it, bummer.
But if you're running WinXP Pro under BootCamp, you don't need OS X Drivers, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by gentryfunk
Did anyone notice that only in the 3Ghz configuration is the Mac Pro "1.6-2 times faster"? I find it fascinating that IBM's 6 year-old technology is still competitive with Intel's latest and greatest. The G5 was a great processor that ran hot....if only IBM had transitioned more effectively we could be in a very different place today.
Hmmmm....
Apple's performance claims are always exaggerated anyways. I suspect that once benchmarked in the wild, the Quad Xeon 2.66 wont prove to be a whole lot faster than the Quad G5 2.5.
Depending on what price point the Quad G5s drop to, they could prove to be a very good bang for the buck option.
|
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Lateralus
Apple's performance claims are always exaggerated anyways. I suspect that once benchmarked in the wild, the Quad Xeon 2.66 wont prove to be a whole lot faster than the Quad G5 2.5.
Depending on what price point the Quad G5s drop to, they could prove to be a very good bang for the buck option.
You are probably right, at least for the time being. That is because once more apps are Intel native, like Photoshop and Microsoft Office, they you will see more of the everyday performance gains. As long as you are having to run a PowerPC app in Rosetta, you will not see the complete raw power of your processor. We will have a mixed bag experience for at least another year or so until most apps have been switched over to Universal Binaries.
Even so, even the new MacBooks are pretty darn speedy. They don't seem as fast as my Quad G5, but they are screamers.
|
Chris Brown
Media, Brand, and IPTV Consultant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
My statement had nothing to do with anything being run under Rosetta. I'm talking native, Universal apps.
Also, I find it funny that so many people claim that their MacBooks and iMac Core Duos 'feel' as fast as a Quad G5. Yet every benchmark I've ever seen conducted shows that the Quad is significantly faster in any SMP aware application.
|
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Partying down with the Ewoks, after I nuked the Death Star!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Lateralus
My statement had nothing to do with anything being run under Rosetta. I'm talking native, Universal apps.
Also, I find it funny that so many people claim that their MacBooks and iMac Core Duos 'feel' as fast as a Quad G5. Yet every benchmark I've ever seen conducted shows that the Quad is significantly faster in any SMP aware application.
True, but for some strange reason the OS still FEELS faster. Perhaps parts of the UI are better suited to intel.
|
"Hello, what have we here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by dudesteve
Cool they updated the faq, when I looked yesterday it wasn't there
|
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Lateralus
My statement had nothing to do with anything being run under Rosetta. I'm talking native, Universal apps.
Also, I find it funny that so many people claim that their MacBooks and iMac Core Duos 'feel' as fast as a Quad G5. Yet every benchmark I've ever seen conducted shows that the Quad is significantly faster in any SMP aware application.
If Apple does their job, writing good code, and optimizing it properly, and if application vendors do their job, then it is possible to see the speed improvements that Apple claims.
We won't completely know until we get our hands on the MacPro's and 10.5 at some point.
|
Chris Brown
Media, Brand, and IPTV Consultant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Apple's code has nothing to do with the Mac Pro hardware's capabilities.
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Status:
Offline
|
|
Actually yes it does - bloated, inefficient code slows down hardware performance. That's why Microsoft Office is affectionately referred to as bloatware.
Inefficient code = more processor cycles, more RAM usage and more read/writes to your hard drive. You better believe it slows down performance.
|
Chris Brown
Media, Brand, and IPTV Consultant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
No, it does not slow down the hardware; it simply makes less efficient use of the hardware. A CPU's power basically comes down to how many operations it can do in a given amount of time. Whether those operations are being used wisely is not relevant to the actual hardware.
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by gentryfunk
Did anyone notice that only in the 3Ghz configuration is the Mac Pro "1.6-2 times faster"? I find it fascinating that IBM's 6 year-old technology is still competitive with Intel's latest and greatest. The G5 was a great processor that ran hot....if only IBM had transitioned more effectively we could be in a very different place today.
The fact that the older 970MP (in the case of the MP it's not six years btw) can hold up to a current 3.0GHz Woodcrest fairly OK really does speak for the 970's design. Of course it's a power hog though (-> see the Xserve improvements thanks to Woodcrest).
However for us Mac users the 1.6-2x figure can also give a wrong impression. Apple got 1.6-2x when comparing the quad core G5 to the new 3GHz Xeon Mac Pro. Fair enough. But any other G5 would have only half the cores. Any other Mac Pro will still have 4 cores. So while the quad G5 holds up quite well, the dual G5s will get slapped as soon as you use multithreaded apps or multitask.
In short: If you've got a quad G5 there's no reason panic. But if not and you use UBs, the Mac Pros are definitely something to consider rather sooner than later.
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status:
Offline
|
|
At 3GHz w/ 4MB cache, I wonder how Rosetta-translated apps will run. Probably pretty darn well, I bet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Michigan
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Cadaver
At 3GHz w/ 4MB cache, I wonder how Rosetta-translated apps will run. Probably pretty darn well, I bet.
There was a test in one of the forums - I'll do some looking, where the presence of a 4MB cache greatly increased rosettas performance. Benches on non-UB apps were almost 1:1 with their PPC counterparts. I wish I could remember where I saw this. People where quite surprised and I think the performance was ultimately attributed to the larger cache.
I cant wait till we see some benches in cocktail and itunes in next couple of days.
|
Pismo 400 | Powerbook 1.5 GHz | MacPro 2.66/6GB/7300GT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by gentryfunk
Did anyone notice that only in the 3Ghz configuration is the Mac Pro "1.6-2 times faster"? I find it fascinating that IBM's 6 year-old technology is still competitive with Intel's latest and greatest. The G5 was a great processor that ran hot....if only IBM had transitioned more effectively we could be in a very different place today.
I think you mean IBM's 1 year old technology; the dual core chips that make the quad G5 possible were only released last year. Intel will double the number of cores again before the end of the year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|