[Ken_F2]

Aceshardware had some time with Apple's newest dual G4 1.25GHz setup. They compared the time to create movies (MPEG4/Quicktime5 encoding), as well as tests in Adobe Premiere, and Lightwave.

Check out the results right here.

[Mac Zealot]

Basically, the 1.25 GHz dual G4 PowerMac is slower than most high end PCs (including single-processor ones), but it is not totally defenseless. In multi-threaded content creation applications, it can perform like a 2.2 GHz Pentium 4 and even a 3.06 GHz one. Considering that Content Creation is still the main reason why people buy Macs, this isn't bad at all. And while it may seem trivial to some, it must be said that the Apple PowerMac does feature a very nice system chassis that provides easy access to components.

Still, Apple needs a 0.13 micron chip soon, as a PowerMac is a lot more expensive than a typical OEM PC. Dell's 3.06 GHz Pentium 4 system is about $600 less expensive than the dual 1.25 GHz PowerMac. We also did a quick comparison between an almost perfectly similar equipped Dell dual 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 Xeon and Apple dual 1.25 GHz PowerMac G4 and found out that the Dell is still 500 to 600 Euros cheaper in Europe, while it outperforms the Apple in all content creation tasks. Of course, those simply seeking a PowerPC-based system that does not neccessarily run MacOS and does not cost a lot of money might look to the recently announced PowerPC-based ATX "Teron" motherboard.

That's about all we need to hear. No arguing here.

[freakboy2]

Yeah, this is exactly what I was trying to say in my posts on the other thread about this. G4's are underpowered and overpriced..

What a SHOCK!

lol..

FB2

Don't call me freakboy, I'm freakboy2

Originally posted by Ken_F2:
Aceshardware had some time with Apple's newest dual G4 1.25GHz setup. They compared the time to create movies (MPEG4/Quicktime5 encoding), as well as tests in Adobe Premiere, and Lightwave.

Check out the results right here.

[MindFad]

We know, frekboy. We've heard it hundred score times. I'm sure Apple will get out what we want next year, and if not, I'll still be buying my computers from Apple.

[Cooter]

....what it tells me is that Intel has a decent overall lead in power, but not massively so. So, does dumping 15 years of platform knowledge, sofware and hardware for a this speed gain make sense?

$600? Would you trade your entire knowldege base for $600 and a marginal speed boost?

Mmmmm. No. And, the first time your PC pukes up on your work, all the time you saved with your extra speed and all the cash you saved with your $600 discount (which honestly doesn't exist, check the Dell site for evidence) and you are now running a deficit.

Not to mention that there is no way to run and test Final Cut Pro and DVD Studio Pro cross platform. Both apps are the ultimate example of wat proper code optimization will buy a developer.

All this does is prove that PCs are not "way faster than a Mac for less money."

[Superchicken]

Why not test it out with Avid or something that's optomized well for both platforms. Or if they're gona test out different machines, why not give the Power Mac final Cut pro to edit the video?

[suhail]

It is kind of curious to find every article that shows how slow Macs are use Adobe Premiere. Is adobe Premiere for OSX very slow?
Lightwave stacked-up ok.

I doubt many people use Premiere on Macs anymore, could it be that Adobe just didn't bother to put too much effort into it because of FCP for the Mac?

[proux]

Not everything is based on money, why do you think people buy Porsche when they can buy Ford Mustang for half the price?

[driven]

Originally posted by proux:
Not everything is based on money, why do you think people buy Porsche when they can buy Ford Mustang for half the price?

I bet they would if the Mustang consistently outperformed their Porsche. (They don't buy the Porsche just for the fine leather seats.)

[Amorph]

That article raised some interesting points that run counter to conventional wisdom:

• They shrugged off the slower bus, pointing to the G4's significantly faster cache.
• They considered the G4 competitive with the other offerings, given the larger die size; once it caught up in fab technology, they figured it would be a match again.
• They identified one of the sources of the Apple's lower performance: Single-threaded applications (including Premiere - who cares about Premiere?!). When both processors were engaged, the Mac did perfectly well.

Since PowerLogix tipped their hand, and it looks like the G4 is getting the die shrink it needs this January, and then the G4 should be doing all right. It might not be the fastest horse in the race, but it'll be up toward the front.

The PowerLogix guy seemed to imply that the upcoming 1.2GHz G4 will consume less power than the 800MHz G4 currently does, despite being clocked 50% higher. What kind of die shrink are we looking at here?

[Ken_F2]

The PowerLogix guy seemed to imply that the upcoming 1.2GHz G4 will consume less power than the 800MHz G4 currently does, despite being clocked 50% higher. What kind of die shrink are we looking at here?

That's what you get with the move from .18 to .13 micron in manufacturing. Assuming you optimize the layout for the new process, and don't make any changes, you can potentially reduce the size of the processor by 50%.

As an example, Intel's latest P4 3.06 GHz processor with Hyperthreading (built on .13 micron copper), although hot, runs cooler than the original P4 2.0GHz built on .18 micron aluminum. The original P4 2.0GHz with 256K L2 (on .18 micron) was a monstrosity at 217mm^2, whereas the current P4 3.06GHz with twice the L2 cache (512kb) and Hyperthreading is 131mm^2 on the .13 micron manufacturing process.

For comparison, the current G4 on .18um is 106mm^2, while the newly announced IBM 970 is ~120mm^2 on the .13um process. At .13um, the current G4 should be around 55mm^2 (assuming no other changes), which really makes the 120mm^2 IBM 970 seem like a rather large PowerPC processor.

That doesn't mean that Motorola will be able to increase frequencies by 1.0GHz, since the P4 was specifically designed to scale like that with new processes, but the G4 should hit as high as 1.6GHz on the .13 process, while dissipating the same if not less heat as the current 1.25 GHz.

[eddiecatflap]

..it's well known adobe's products ain't optimised for os-x.

..maybe they secretly work for microshaft ?

[Amorph]

Originally posted by Ken_F2:

That's what you get with the move from .18 to .13 micron in manufacturing. Assuming you optimize the layout for the new process, and don't make any changes, you can potentially reduce the size of the processor by 50%.

Ah. Because the die size shrinkage is a square of the process shrinkage, correct?

[qb]
[T]he current G4 on .18um is 106mm^2, while the newly announced IBM 970 is ~120mm^2 on the .13um process. At .13um, the current G4 should be around 55mm^2 (assuming no other changes), which really makes the 120mm^2 IBM 970 seem like a rather large PowerPC processor.[/qb]

No wonder they're going to migrate it swiftly to .09 micron.

[qb]That doesn't mean that Motorola will be able to increase frequencies by 1.0GHz, since the P4 was specifically designed to scale like that with new processes, but the G4 should hit as high as 1.6GHz on the .13 process, while dissipating the same if not less heat as the current 1.25 GHz. [/B]

1.2 - 1.6GHz is in line with long-reported numbers for the Next Big Thing(TM), and roughly in line with a 50% gain in clock speed (tapering off at the high end) so I'll buy that.

[whatever7]

Moter Trend just did a comparison of the new Accord V6 coupe and the Mercedes CLK320. The Accord is faster, has shorter quarter mile, is more reliable, has higher horse power, has equip amount of room, has DVD navigation, carbon fiber interior trim, voice activation and leather, have an exterior design that suspciously like the CLK, and cost 1/2 of the Benz. Do you think DC is sweating over the new Accord?

The last thing Apple want is competing on price front with the PC manuf.

[CheesePuff]

N/M it was a different article I was thinking of.

[Hi I'm Ben]

Mac people... ugh..
I almost applied at the Apple store but I don't think i could ever live the lies you people do that you got a good value out of your mac.

If you're not a complete moron you can have a GREAT pc system that DOES NOT crash. It's COMPLETELY custimizable and VERY FAST. Oh, lets not forget. Cheap.

and you know what, the mac is slower, the mhz myth is fake and you just need to move on with your life and realize you bought your mac hopefully because you have a sense of style and taste.

But honestly, all this PC bashing has got to go, it only makes you sound really uneducated.

[Superchicken]

Faster G4s are always a good thing

By the way Ben... no one cares

[Simon]

Originally posted by Hi I'm Ben:
Mac people... ugh..
I almost applied at the Apple store but I don't think i could ever live the lies you people do that you got a good value out of your mac.

If you're not a complete moron you can have a GREAT pc system that DOES NOT crash. It's COMPLETELY custimizable and VERY FAST. Oh, lets not forget. Cheap.

and you know what, the mac is slower, the mhz myth is fake and you just need to move on with your life and realize you bought your mac hopefully because you have a sense of style and taste.

But honestly, all this PC bashing has got to go, it only makes you sound really uneducated.

Ben, you're full of it. Your cheap PC can be faster than a Mac, cheaper than a Mac and more expandable than a Mac. Hell it could even be more beautiful than a Mac (though I highly doubt that one).
BUT IT DOESN'T RUN MAC OS X
So please shut up. We know your PC troll blabla well enough, but as SuperChick said a) nobody cares and b) we are interested in faster Macs - screw PCs. So stick it. Idiot.

[freakboy2]

Actually, it really sounds like you do care. And he's right. All you guys have your macs because OSX is the best consumer OS in the world right now. It's awesome. It might even be around in 15-20 years. (unlike winXP).

FB2

PS Macs are overpriced and apple can still barely stay above water.

Originally posted by Simon:

So please shut up. We know your PC troll blabla well enough, but as SuperChick said a) nobody cares and b) we are interested in faster Macs - screw PCs. So stick it. Idiot.

[Hi I'm Ben]

You have trouble reading

Originally posted by Simon:


Ben, you're full of it. Your cheap PC can be faster than a Mac, cheaper than a Mac and more expandable than a Mac. Hell it could even be more beautiful than a Mac (though I highly doubt that one).
BUT IT DOESN'T RUN MAC OS X
So please shut up. We know your PC troll blabla well enough, but as SuperChick said a) nobody cares and b) we are interested in faster Macs - screw PCs. So stick it. Idiot.

[Superchicken]

acctually I'm running OS 9 on a 333Mhz iMac G3 honestly I don't care if your PC is faster I'd still rather use my iMac I acctually enjoy using it.

[raferx]

Originally posted by freakboy2:
Actually, it really sounds like you do care. And he's right. All you guys have your macs because OSX is the best consumer OS in the world right now. It's awesome. It might even be around in 15-20 years. (unlike winXP).

FB2

PS Macs are overpriced and apple can still barely stay above water.

Funny, they still over $4 billion in cash assets, and the BEST R&D in the world... every PC hardware and software company tries desperately to be like them in every way, they have the most loyal customer base in the industry (probably ANY industry) and they are still innovating. TCP/IP on FireWire... HELLO! The Redmond boys are all lined up to get the big ass paddle over that one... And as a Canadian, (where MAcs are EVEN more $$$$) $2600 for a DP 867 is without a doubt a bargain. Even when a dual Athlon can be had for $1700... X.2 or XP? No choice from my standpoint. Apple all the way.

[Amorph]

Originally posted by raferx:

TCP/IP on FireWire... HELLO! The Redmond boys are all lined up to get the big ass paddle over that one...

Actually, Win XP has had TCP/IP over FireWire for a while now. If Apple's going to paddle them, it'll be in finding a way to exploit it usefully. Right now it's on Windows the same way USB was on PCs before the iMac appeared.

That's where Apple is shining right now. They might not be the first to do something, but when they do it's done well, and done for a reason.

Well, most of the time.

[suhail]

Just curious here�
Isn't Gigabit faster than FireWire?
I know it shouldn't be but Gigabit is 1,000,000,000Bits/sec and FireWire is 400,000,000Bits/sec

Am I missing something?

[Big Mac]

I'm glad to see that the Power Mac isn't hopelessly outclassed. But unquestionably Apple needs to do everything it can (and more) in order to get us processor improvements in a timely manner. MHz is beating our platform down psychologically -- there's no way to get around it. It is having its effect on me, and if I, as a fervent Mac devotee, am susceptible to it, then I really am concerned about the average consumer. Apple needs to be competitive in the processor game. And if we're not going to catch up in MHz, Apple should strip any MHz ratings from product literature as AMD has. But we still need to be competitive in terms of raw productivity speed, real world benchmarks. If we continue to lag, all of the merits of OS X won't be sufficient. That's the unfortunate reality.

[ApeInTheShell]

a reasonable review would be 1.25 ghz vs. a 1.25 ghz processor.

Yet columnists do like the mine's bigger than yours review better.
All i know is the new G4 runs faster than my iMac G3.
Good enough for me.

[freakboy2]

Can someone fill us in on why this is a big deal? I mean the whole world already uses ethernet, why is ip over firewire going to change anything?

The only thing i can think of is that my it guy told me that to really get gigabit ethernet you need to use fibre cabling, which is $$$ and has no installed base in most office settings.

I'd rather have wireless anyday - even if its slow as ****.

Fb2

PS whoever the guy was who said that apple had the best r&d in the world - they have some good ideas and products, but they haven't done anything revolutionary since they bought Next and took 5 years to make it into a consumer OS.

I don't see the revolutions. The other guy was right on when he said that apple does it right when they do it. (imovie, iphoto, etc.)

Originally posted by suhail:
Just curious here�
Isn't Gigabit faster than FireWire?
I know it shouldn't be but Gigabit is 1,000,000,000Bits/sec and FireWire is 400,000,000Bits/sec

Am I missing something?

[suhail]

I got good Gigabit speeds by using Cat-6 Cables and a Gigabit Switch (3COM SuperStack3).
It's cool, because MBs copy as if they were KBs.

[Jansar]

Originally posted by ApeInTheShell:
a reasonable review would be 1.25 ghz vs. a 1.25 ghz processor.

Yet columnists do like the mine's bigger than yours review better.
All i know is the new G4 runs faster than my iMac G3.
Good enough for me.

well, they're just gunning for the high-end apples versus the high-end pcs

but yes, compara macs to macs...heh...not like anyone's going to switch to PC (who would, anyway)

[Un-Inferior]

Originally posted by whatever7:
Moter Trend just did a comparison of the new Accord V6 coupe and the Mercedes CLK320. The Accord is faster, has shorter quarter mile, is more reliable, has higher horse power, has equip amount of room, has DVD navigation, carbon fiber interior trim, voice activation and leather, have an exterior design that suspciously like the CLK, and cost 1/2 of the Benz. Do you think DC is sweating over the new Accord?

The last thing Apple want is competing on price front with the PC manuf.

i don't get that analogy. there's only a small percentage of people who think that g4's are that much better quality than say an alienware or dell pc. EVERYONE knows that a benz is higher quality than a honda. what apple needs to do is be more competitive with pc's, which is the opposite of what you said.

i'm a perfect example of a visual designer who was trying to recently buy a mac, but couldn't afford the price of a powermac. i prefer mac osx, but i don't have any snobby hangups about using a pc. i ended up getting an athlon xp machine for about $1200 which will hopefully hold me over until apple gets it's act together. otherwise, i don't think i'll look back.

[redJag]

Originally posted by driven:


I bet they would if the Mustang consistently outperformed their Porsche. (They don't buy the Porsche just for the fine leather seats.)

They sure don't! They buy it because it is a symbol of their wealth. They don't drive fast. They don't care how often their driver has to fill up on gas (unless of course he fills it while they have to sit there and WAIT). Heh.

[DeathMan]

I'm not sure people who own porshes have people to drive them aroud. Maybe they still have people that fill them up though. But even then, I'm thinking they drive their own vehicels.

Maybe you're thinking Rolls Royce or somthing along those lines.

[proux]

Most people don't need the extra speed boost you can get with buying a PC. Sure macs are a bit more expensive and not as fast. Bust most people don't care, their computer experience is just much better and they can do more things in the same amount of time because it is easier to do, not because you machine is 25 % faster.

Back to the car analogy, maybe the Porsche example is a bit steep, but take a BMW 5 series and a Hunday Sonata, same as PC/Macs.

[rm199]

I didn't buy a porsche so that someone else could drive it... the pleasure is all mine. A bentley however, yes I'm not sure that would be my cup of tea - a driver would be required.

RM

[guardianx]

hahah this crap is bogus. who the hel cares about the stupid movie? seriously no one gives a dam about movies unless they are in the flim industry or some old ass geezer trying to make a home movie.. i dont see them dong test on games/ opening and running the browser/using 3d programs such as maya. of course they wont do that because the pc would smack the mac over its over prices head with a silly stick. the only reason the mac is winning the test is because adobe was made for mac then some idiot tried to translate it to the pc... so the pc is slower .. the same can be seen in the internet exploror browser. if u run a web page on the pc it is way faster then the gay mac.. and the majority of the user buy a computer for games.... and other important things in life........ now would u please stop posting these gay ass bias benchmark. thanx you mister moronic mac user.

[guardianx]

oh my i read the chart wrong haha how sad even with the disadvantage the pc rock ur candy behind...... pc > mac simpre..what is next?

[aaanorton]

Click me.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by aaanorton:
Click me.

[starman]

However....

I've been itching to get a new PowerMac because the video encoding takes SO DAMN LONG on my 733 (roughly 2-3x the time of the original video for MPEG-2). Then I see benchmarks like this and question what I should do. Should I wait? Move my video editing to my PC? (I'd rather not) or just put my faith in Apple?

The problem is, when you're dropping $3K on a computer for a HOBBY it's hard to justify the price. I'd rather take that money and put it towards a progressive scan video projector, but I SO want a new Mac.

Ugh...I don't know what to do. I'm in limbo. Wait 3 weeks for MWSF, then wait longer for the machines to ship IF they're even announced, or wait even longer for the eventual 970?

*bonk* <-- hits head on table.

Mike