or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Dual 1.25 vs Dell 3 Ghz
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dual 1.25 vs Dell 3 Ghz

post #1 of 71
Thread Starter 
Very interesting article on hyperthreading on the 3ghz single vs. the Dual 1.25. Also, towards the end of the article it was interesting reading about the Nordic countries and how they prefer/request/demand quiet machines.

<a href="http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm" target="_blank">http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm</a>
post #2 of 71
pathetic...
brownCow();
Reply
brownCow();
Reply
post #3 of 71
We all expect this.

But gotta mention that.......After Effects never uses over 55% of each CPU usage on Dual systems. In other words it's like a 1.25Ghz machine fighting against the 3.06 Ghz machine

When using Combustion as a test mark results shouldn't be this bad even it's still slower than the PC. Combustion uses 98% of each CPU's power on dual machine

All in all. Steve Jobs really needs to stop his hype and lies about their products' performance.

Apple's current Ultra-Lame Hardware Offering (tm) is an undeniable truth.
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #4 of 71
I usually offer a little positivity toward the mac at this time, but I have none to offer. The final paragraph is quite interesting and very valid, and it goes like this:

<strong> [quote]
Of course, Mac stalwarts will cling to the notion that Mac OS X is so much better and easier to use than Windows XP, but if youre spending all day inside After Effects, which operating system youre using makes little difference. What does make a huge difference is if you have to sit and wait for rendering any longer than necessary. And, according to our benchmarks here, if you have an After Effects composite that needs, say, two hours to render on the Mac, itll take you about an hour and 10 minutes on this PC. So, in addition to the extra $1000 you must pay for the Mac, it will cost you plenty of time as well, especially while using After Effects. Time is money. After looking at these startling benchmark results, we have to gaze over at our beautifully-designed Macs and ask, Is it worth it?<hr></blockquote></strong>
post #5 of 71
[quote]Originally posted by Leonis:
<strong>

All in all. Steve Jobs really needs to stop his hype and lies about their products' performance.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah! It's about time Jobs stopped talking up how great Macs are and started telling everyone how much they suck! That would be much better!
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
Reply
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
Reply
post #6 of 71
[quote]Originally posted by Leonis:
<strong>All in all. Steve Jobs really needs to stop his hype and lies about their products' performance.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What lies? He hasn't demoed a Power Mac for ages.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #7 of 71
[quote]Originally posted by progmac:
<strong>I usually offer a little positivity toward the mac at this time, but I have none to offer. The final paragraph is quite interesting and very valid, and it goes like this:

[qb] </strong>[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

The problem is just that the Mac does not cost $1,000 more than the Dell - he is comparing the base price of the Dell to the BTO config of the Power Mac.

A standard 2x1.25GHz G4 with 1GB RAM is $3,339.

A Dell with 1 GB RAM, 120 GB HD and FireWire is $3,510.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #8 of 71
Slaughtered again. An by a wider margin than ever! All for a 1000 dollars less... And the scary part is that in 3 months a comparable 3Ghz PC will cost another 25-33% less while Apple desperately tries to bundle an over-priced monitor or some software everyone working in the business already owns.

Don't mind me, I'm just a troll
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #9 of 71
After Effects probably only uses 55% of each processor in a dual 1.25Ghz PowerMac because the bus doesn't let data get to the processor fast enough for it to do any more than that.

Sure, in January we'll have faster chips on a 200Mhz bus, and slightly larger caches, but there will still be a lot of wasted cpu cycles due to a bus bottleneck, but hopefully not as much. Maybe we'll get to 65% usage on a dual processor machine.
Prosecutors will be violated
Reply
Prosecutors will be violated
Reply
post #10 of 71
[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>Slaughtered again. An by a wider margin than ever! All for a 1000 dollars less... And the scary part is that in 3 months a comparable 3Ghz PC will cost another 25-33% less while Apple desperately tries to bundle an over-priced monitor or some software everyone working in the business already owns.

Don't mind me, I'm just a troll </strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes you are, because the Dell he tested is not $1,000 cheaper than the Mac.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #11 of 71
[quote]Originally posted by rogue27:
<strong>After Effects probably only uses 55% of each processor in a dual 1.25Ghz PowerMac because the bus doesn't let data get to the processor fast enough for it to do any more than that.</strong><hr></blockquote>

If it's because of the bus, then why can Cumbustion and Cleaner utilize the processors better?

[ 11-14-2002: Message edited by: JLL ]</p>
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #12 of 71
And the solution for the Mac to be competitive is?...

Many may choose a Mac over a PC if both the performance and pricing gap weren't so great.
I don't think Apple has any intention on the pricing issue, but perhaps if some of these rumours of IBM equipped chips actually make into the towers by MWSF, there may be hope yet.

One other option...start putting Intel chips in Macs.
However, I'd rather just accept the fact that we're forever bound to pay more for less. speed.
post #13 of 71
Don't worry, the Mac performance hype machine will swing (back) into overdrive when the 970 arrives.
Stoo
Reply
Stoo
Reply
post #14 of 71
The price they quoted on this site is indeed correct (AND it includes a 3 year ONSITE next day service warranty). This is the configuration they used for those tests (imagine the scores had they used the ATI 128MB 9700?):

$2,942.00

Dell Precision™ Workstation 350 Minitower
3.06GHz, Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor, 512K / 533 Front Side Bus
1GB PC1066 RDRAM®
Intel® Pro/1000 MT Gigabit Ethernet
ATI, FIRE GL™ E1, 64MB, 2 VGA or 1 VGA and 1 DVI
120GB ATA-100 IDE, 1 inch (7200 rpm) with 8MB DataBurst Cache™
Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional, SP1
V.92 PCI Data/Fax Controllerless Modem
16X DVD
48X CDRW
1394 Controller Card
3Yr Parts + Onsite Labor (Next Business Day)
post #15 of 71
Wow. makes me glad I am a laptop only user, where Apple is better able to compete.

There's no excuse, but I wouldn't say that Jobs has been "lieing"...he no longer demos PowerMacs killing Windows boxes, since they wouldn't, and until the PPC970 I doubt things will change much.

It's a hard time.
post #16 of 71
This definately isn't a surprise. And if that Dell really is so much less than the PM that's really sad. Another example of why Apple's gotta low the prices of the high end tower.
post #17 of 71
EDIT: Never mind, should read more closely.

[ 11-14-2002: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</p>
post #18 of 71
[quote]Originally posted by Patchouli:
<strong>The price they quoted on this site is indeed correct (AND it includes a 3 year ONSITE next day service warranty). This is the configuration they used for those tests (imagine the scores had they used the ATI 128MB 9700?):

$2,942.00

Dell Precision™ Workstation 350 Minitower
3.06GHz, Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor, 512K / 533 Front Side Bus
1GB PC1066 RDRAM®
Intel® Pro/1000 MT Gigabit Ethernet
ATI, FIRE GL™ E1, 64MB, 2 VGA or 1 VGA and 1 DVI
120GB ATA-100 IDE, 1 inch (7200 rpm) with 8MB DataBurst Cache™
Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional, SP1
V.92 PCI Data/Fax Controllerless Modem
16X DVD
48X CDRW
1394 Controller Card
3Yr Parts + Onsite Labor (Next Business Day)</strong><hr></blockquote>

Use 2 RIMMS instead of 4 and the price is $300 more.

Remove the SuperDrive from the Power Mac and take the Radeon, the price is $3,139
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #19 of 71
Its quality, not quantity

Nobody can tell a mac user why they like Macs, and why they Hate Windows they just do. Its a very personal experience. Its not all the hardware, I think its about
15-20% the hardware. More-so if you perfer laptops. The overwellming tide is the interface. I used windows for three years and after I mastered windows there was something wrong. It was'nt the system it was the OS.

Hi my name is Dmgeist, and I'm a Mac User! :cool:

[ 11-14-2002: Message edited by: dmgeist ]</p>
In the future that I see, we are the system.
Reply
In the future that I see, we are the system.
Reply
post #20 of 71
Since the SlowSilver(tm) period many Power Mac towers have had tons of hardware defects. Can we say they are in good quality??
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #21 of 71
Configure it any way you want, at the end of the day the Dell gives more features and bang for the buck (if you use XP). These are the configs that they used and they are talking price versus performance. To nit-pick that is just ridiculous. Can you choose 4 Dimms at the Apple store? Can you get just the fastest DVD and CDRW drives? On the Dell the options are there to configure it anyway you want. Besides, I am much more impressed with separate 16X DVD and 48X CDR drives than a SuperDrive. Also, the new Dell's are VERY quiet. From the fans to the HDs which are enclosed in shrouds. Even IF the prices WERE the same, the performance difference is still the same which shows how unjustified Apple's pricing is (for their Desktops). And NO, Apple does NOT use better parts in their systems. Better plastics and cases maybe? That's up to the individual.

Also, that price above INCLUDES the infamous Dell 3 year ONSITE Next Day Service Warranty. You'd have to add $349 for Apple's support which doesn't even come close.

[ 11-14-2002: Message edited by: Patchouli ]</p>
post #22 of 71
So they test a dual 1,25 GHz G4 with an app that does not use both processors (at least not well) and that does not use AltiVec. This effectively reduces the dual 1,25 GHz G4 to a single 1,25 GHz G3 system. And they find that a 3 GHz P4 system is almost twice as fast.
Why am I not surprised? I'm more surprised that the difference wasn't bigger.
They are not testing which system is best for video, they are testing which system runs AE better. At this moment that is a P4-system. So if you spend all your time doing AE work, a P4 system is, at the moment, a better option.
It would have been interesting to see what would happen in this test if they tried to run another job at the same time (f.ex. a Photoshop-job)? Mac OSX would then effectively have one processor free to use for the Photohop-job, so this should not influence the AE, while the P4 system should feel the stress. That would have been interseting. Maybe the limited bus on the Mac would have influenced this.
Don't get me wrong - I would also like to have a Mac with better performance and lower price. But this "test" was seriously biased in favour of the PC.
post #23 of 71
[quote]Originally posted by Patchouli:
<strong>Also, that price above INCLUDES the infamous Dell 3 year ONSITE Next Day Service Warranty.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't know if I'd want an infamous service.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #24 of 71
[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>

I don't know if I'd want an infamous service.</strong><hr></blockquote>Well, I had a 17" Dell (powered by SamSung) LCD Display with 1 dead pixel in it. I didn't think that was acceptable, so I called customer care and was overnighted a brand new one (they paid postage for the return as well). I also noticed that the price of my system was reduced since I purchased it - they honored it and credited difference (within 30 days). My sister's fan was noisier than it should have been, they came the next afternoon and replaced it with a quiet one (at her house). My father's notebook's LCD Bezel was getting a bit loose (he dropped it), they replaced it the next day in his living room. Finally, a co-worker fried her internal modem in her laptop using a digital phone line in a hotel (she didn't know better). They came to the office the following business day and installed a new one. Not one cent for any of the above and no questioning and interrogation either. They weren't asked to go to CompUSA to have it serviced and they wouldn't dare take longer than 2-3 business days to get it back to you (if you choose to ship it to them). I have been more than impressed with Dell's Warranty Service.

[ 11-14-2002: Message edited by: Patchouli ]</p>
post #25 of 71
Let me be straightforward. As an avid Apple user since I was 2 years old on my parents Apple IIe (which still works btw) up to now on my Powerbook G4, I am used to seeing PCs boast faster clockspeeds and such...but lately, I have been questioning our excuses as faithful Mac users. Basically, I am tired of us getting our asses kicked by Intel chips in sub $2000 boxes. Some will argue that OSX far superior to Windows XP, which I will agree with 100%...but what the hell does that matter to a video editor and producer such as myself who uses programs like Adobe Photoshop, Avid Xpress, and Adobe After Effects. These new 3 Ghz beasts with their hyperthreading make my brand spankin new G4 Tower which I received just today look pitiful. I spent over $2000 on the damn thing and didnt even get a monitor. Apple better have something up their sleeves for MWSF such as the Power4 or the 970, because I don't know how much longer we can convince ourselves that our precious Macs are superior to that of custom built PC, or even Dell (god forbid) machines. While we sit at 1 Ghz in our very sexy, slim, and reliable Powerbooks for $3000, PC notebook users laugh at us as they sit on their flaming hot, unreliable, ordinary 2.53 Ghz Vaios, Inspirons, and Satellites. They aren't sexy, or thin, or have slot loading drives, or even OSX, but they get the job done and they get them done MUCH faster than our treasured Powerbooks and iBooks. I am no troll, I will assure you that. I am just worried that we blindly convince ourselves that our dual 1.25 Ghz monsters can outmatch the 3 Ghz Intel beasts of today. We do have better machines...they look better, they work better, they do indeed have a superior operating system, and they are more reliable then anything out there...but lets not make ourselves look like fools by convincing ourselves that we can beat a 3 Ghz Intel Hyperthreader. Hell, I would be thrilled to see Apple put Intel's 3Ghz chips inside a G4 case in January...according to some articles...Marklar (OSX on x86) runs Final Cut Pro SUPERFAST!!!!!

[ 11-14-2002: Message edited by: filmmaker2002 ]</p>
post #26 of 71
[quote]Originally posted by Patchouli:
<strong>I have been more than impressed with Dell's Warranty Service.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Then why do you call it infamous?
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #27 of 71
[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>

Then why do you call it infamous?</strong><hr></blockquote>Typo. :o
post #28 of 71
Isn't great how digitalvideoediting.com can always compare brand new PC hardware to Apple hardware released months ago? Too bad they can never be on Apple's schedule...

And in any event AE isn't exactly Adobe's priority on the Mac...as stated before it can't begin to make use of a dual 1.25GHz G4.

If AE could actually use both procs at ~100% (I would expect them to renice it appropriately) then it would match or beat the Dell.

I think with the next version of AE, provided it can make use of what it has to work with rather than pussy foot around at half speed, digitalvideoediting.com will have to cease these little slaughterings.
post #29 of 71
[quote]Originally posted by Patchouli:
<strong>Well, I had a 17" Dell (powered by SamSung) LCD Display with 1 dead pixel in it. I didn't think that was acceptable, so I called customer care and was overnighted a brand new one (they paid postage for the return as well).</strong><hr></blockquote>

(Much more good stuff snipped.)

Support anecdotes are dangerous, because they vary wildly. For example: At work, we have Dell's top-of-the-line enterprise support, courtesy of the University (which is a huge customer). We had a brand new laptop arrive with a bad power cord. They wanted to charge us $40 + S/H to replace it, and it took them a week to get it to us. We had another laptop arrive DOA, and Dell refused to take it back. We ended up banning the campus rep from our offices until they finally did - a solid year later.

My Apple Support story is this: I've never had to use it. Once. In 18 years (note: Apple, not Mac . On the other hand, Fran441 can tell you about the hell he went through with his PowerBook.

Apple and Dell are both ranked very highly, and frequently #1, in support, depending on who's polling. I'd trust those broad surveys more than anyone's individual account.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #30 of 71
Yeah, all you really need to consider is this: After Effects is only using 55% of each processor on the Mac, maximum. If Adobe would get their act together and get After Effects to use 95-100% of each processor, you would see the same numbers out of the Mac as that 3 Ghz Dell. That's really all there is to it.
- Apple certified service tech
- Mac user since 1985
- All around Mac dork
Reply
- Apple certified service tech
- Mac user since 1985
- All around Mac dork
Reply
post #31 of 71
For After Effects to get high dual CPU usage, both G4s would have to be kept fed. As they share the same 64bit/167MHz MPX bus (1.3GB/s), that might be tricky.

Is After Effects multithreaded or Altivec optimised?
Stoo
Reply
Stoo
Reply
post #32 of 71
[quote]Originally posted by Patchouli:
<strong>Typo. :o </strong><hr></blockquote>

actually, dont famous and infamous mean the same thing? or is that flammable and inflammable?
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
post #33 of 71
Apple PowerMac G4 Dual 1.25GHz: $3,110.00
  • Power Mac G4 Dual 1.25GHz w/167MHz system bus
  • 1GB PC2700 DDR SDRAM - 2 DIMMs
  • Apple Pro Mouse
  • Apple Pro Keyboard
  • 120GB Ultra ATA drive
  • Optical 1 - Combo Drive (DVD/CD-RW)
  • ATI Radeon 9000 Pro dual-display w/64MB DDR
  • No Modem
  • Mac OS X
  • Built-in FireWire and Gigabit Ethernet

3.06GHz Dell Precision 350: $3,264.00
  • Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor, 3.06GHz, 512K / 533 Front Side Bus
  • 1GB PC1066 RDRAM® (2 RIMMS ) (G4 use only two as well)
  • Entry Level Quietkey Keyboard, PS/2, (No Hot Keys)
  • Dell, PS/2 (2-button, no scroll)
  • 3Yr Parts + Onsite Labor (Next Business Day)
  • No Modem
  • ATI, FIRE GL E1, 64MB, 2 VGA or 1 VGA and 1 DVI, (dual monitor capable)
  • Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional, SP1 with CD using NTFS
  • No Productivity Software
  • 120GB ATA-100 IDE, 1 inch (7200 rpm) with DataBurst Cache
  • 32X/10/40/16X DVD-CDRW COMBO DRIVE (same as the PowerMac's
  • 1394 Controller Card (What digital video editor would go with out this?)

I made them as equal as possible, even downgrading the mouse on the PC to be more in line with the Pro Mouse.

I really don't see where the price argument is coming from.
post #34 of 71
I have one of the new PowerMacs (the dual 1 GHz), and I really like it. But, if Apple can't find a way to serious catch up in the area of performance by the next time I buy, which will probably be about a year or two from now, I am going to have to seriously consider making the switch, especially if the gap between PC and Mac performance continues to grow at it's present rate.

I'm almost at the point where I think Apple should just bite the bullet and switch to x86. That would solve the performance problem instantly. I just don't know, I just want a Mac that's has comparable performance to a PC. The digital hub is nice and all, but really I buy a new computer so it's faster.

If the performance gap continues to grow, eventually PC's will get software that can't be ported to the Mac because there wouldn't be enough performance. When that happens, it's going to be a bad thing.

But I'm optimistic that Apple will fix this within the next year. There is hope left.
post #35 of 71
[quote]Originally posted by Paul:
<strong>

actually, dont famous and infamous mean the same thing? or is that flammable and inflammable?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think "famous" means well-known in general, while "infamous" means well-known in a bad way. You could say that both Atilla the Hun and Mahatma Ghandi are famous, but only Atilla is infamous.
post #36 of 71
Face it, we macs got busted.
iSurf, iSaw and iType
Reply
iSurf, iSaw and iType
Reply
post #37 of 71
[quote]Originally posted by Spart:
<strong>Apple PowerMac G4 Dual 1.25GHz: $3,110.00
  • Power Mac G4 Dual 1.25GHz w/167MHz system bus
  • 1GB PC2700 DDR SDRAM - 2 DIMMs
  • Apple Pro Mouse
  • Apple Pro Keyboard
  • 120GB Ultra ATA drive
  • Optical 1 - Combo Drive (DVD/CD-RW)
  • ATI Radeon 9000 Pro dual-display w/64MB DDR
  • No Modem
  • Mac OS X
  • Built-in FireWire and Gigabit Ethernet

3.06GHz Dell Precision 350: $3,264.00
  • Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor, 3.06GHz, 512K / 533 Front Side Bus
  • 1GB PC1066 RDRAM® (2 RIMMS ) (G4 use only two as well)
  • Entry Level Quietkey Keyboard, PS/2, (No Hot Keys)
  • Dell, PS/2 (2-button, no scroll)
  • 3Yr Parts + Onsite Labor (Next Business Day)
  • No Modem
  • ATI, FIRE GL E1, 64MB, 2 VGA or 1 VGA and 1 DVI, (dual monitor capable)
  • Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional, SP1 with CD using NTFS
  • No Productivity Software
  • 120GB ATA-100 IDE, 1 inch (7200 rpm) with DataBurst Cache
  • 32X/10/40/16X DVD-CDRW COMBO DRIVE (same as the PowerMac's
  • 1394 Controller Card (What digital video editor would go with out this?)

I made them as equal as possible, even downgrading the mouse on the PC to be more in line with the Pro Mouse.

I really don't see where the price argument is coming from.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Since we are being technical, you must add $249 for Apple's warranty since it comes with the Dell. Also the 120GB HD in the Apple is NOT the 8MB Cache Special Edition as it is in the Dell (which costs more). Gigabit Ethernet is built into the Dell as well. Also, the Apple will be $260 more when their memory promotion ends. I also think it's hilarious to insist on 2 memory Dimms when it's Rambus versus DDR on a system that doesn't even utilize it. You're just looking for a way to drive the price up. If people were able to get their DDR Memory in the Mac in 4 Dimms to save a couple of hundred dollars they would - but they can't.
post #38 of 71
Well those of you who know me know I am more than ready to hand Apple their own head when it comes to arguments about price and performance.

That being said, I really don't feel like this was a fair comparision. In fact it smells like a smear job. Intel announced this processor TODAY. Not a week ago, not a month ago, literally hours ago.

This site comes up with a series of benchmarks where not only does it kick the hell out of the Mac, but every other PC previously tested as well.

As was previously mentioned this mag just happened to test on Intel's schedule, not Apple's. They weren't testing this a month ago. Also they "just happened" to have an interview with Dell spokespeople about how quiet the machine works. Of course the make no mention of Apple noise levels, nor do they speak to Apple at all.

Why didn't they benchmark with something like Cleaner 6.0... oh because it isn't available on the PC yet... so of course we won't know how well Apple would have done on something like that.

That being said if you look at the benchmarks for the 1.25 duelies versus the 2.53 Pentium IV, the results are not bad at all. In fact they are really darn good in my opinion. Apple is right in there winning some and losing some. They outright beat up the Alienware machine and do well against the Dell machine as well.

Again I will be the first to say Apple overcharges or certain machines/configs. I hate how they limit spanning in iBooks,iMacs, and need up update the iMac/eMac starting from 4 months ago like it is nobodies business. Those machines are not competitive.

However this just stinks like a hatchet job. No cleaner, only one or two apps and run on a machine that was literally introduced hours ago.

Nick

[ 11-14-2002: Message edited by: trumptman ]</p>

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #39 of 71
[quote]Originally posted by Patchouli:
<strong>I also think it's hilarious to insist on 2 memory Dimms when it's Rambus versus DDR on a system that doesn't even utilize it. You're just looking for a way to drive the price up.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well- no, 2 dimms to start out is a fairly standard approach when configuring a powerhouse with some expandibility in mind for the future. Why would you want to max out your memory slots so early on, just so you have to replace all of it later when you realize you need more memory? Fill 2 slots, leave 2 open for the big mem hit down the line. Especially speaking of high-grade Rambus modules- you certainly don't want to be throwing out modules later on just to have to buy that capacity back and then some to get the job done.

With regard to the test procedures, I wonder if it would have been possible to run multiple, simultaneous sessions of this program to soak up the evidently unused CPU cycles. Say, you want to process 2 different movies at once. "Multitasking" in such a way is not at all uncommon in a busy professional work environment. Do what it takes to run the computer you have at full duty cycle- you don't just sit there and say, "Oh, I'll just wait around for an hour for this to finish and do absolutely nothing else in the meantime." In situations like that, having some extra CPU cycles lying around helps with the responsiveness when you want to squeeze in a few other minitasks. If you can actually throw 2 movies at a machine at once, that is all the more evidence you have to show the boss you got the pedal to the metal. Shoot, you may be processing a movie on one HD while running diagnostics/ defragmenting/maintenance/backup/archiving (to local drive? to remote server storage?)/running a precautionary antivirus scan/cleaning out old, space-wasting files on your other HD. A busy workstation machine can often be running 24/5 with projects back-to-back, so stopping the show for system-wide maintenance (which will have to happen sometime if you don't want your lifeline machine to grind to a halt one day) can be a real pain vs. just doing spot-maintenance as appropriate/practical. You can use up bandwidth and CPU cycles pretty quickly in such a manner- not a bad way to leverage the current PM's unique memory system.

On the subject of 50% utilization, this is actually a fairly common situation on the Windows side, as well, when it comes to running even some major, professional software on a DP system. You plea and beg for the developers to make their software MP-enabled, but sometimes you just have to face that feature is just not a priority for them. As described earlier, you generally find other ways to use up those extra resources anyway. So typically, it all works out in the end either way. Getting full duty cycle on a MP system for a single process is "cool" to see, but in terms of a real professional work environment, it can just as easily introduce other utilization issues making you wish you didn't exactly have full utilization going on all the time (unless you enjoy endlessly micromanaging your process priorities).

[ 11-14-2002: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]

[ 11-14-2002: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #40 of 71
[quote]Originally posted by Patchouli:
<strong>Since we are being technical, you must add $249 for Apple's warranty since it comes with the Dell. Also the 120GB HD in the Apple is NOT the 8MB Cache Special Edition as it is in the Dell (which costs more). Gigabit Ethernet is built into the Dell as well. Also, the Apple will be $260 more when their memory promotion ends. I also think it's hilarious to insist on 2 memory Dimms when it's Rambus versus DDR on a system that doesn't even utilize it. You're just looking for a way to drive the price up. If people were able to get their DDR Memory in the Mac in 4 Dimms to save a couple of hundred dollars they would - but they can't.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Promotions are promotions. The Dell setup also comes with a few. I insist because it leaves two sockets open for the future, as in the PowerMac. As for the drives, that 8MB cache version wasn't available for the PowerMac and the non-8MB cache version wasn't available for the Dell. I never said gigabit ethernet wasn't built in to the 350. Tack the warranty price on if you want, the price is still competitive.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Dual 1.25 vs Dell 3 Ghz