1Ghz G4 = BS - Page 3

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>

I have a hard time believing that because I went from a PPC 6500/225 to a G4 450. The speed difference for me was not as great as for you and I noticed a HUGE difference. No comparison.</strong><hr></blockquote>

But you have to remember that you were going from a 603e with no backside cache (256K system cache) and a 50MHz bus with probably the stock Rage2 graphics (??) and probably the stock slow hard disk to a G4 with 1 MB of backside cache, a fast system bus, a decent drive and a very fast graphics system. On my systems the only thing that really changed was the processor and bus... both systems had Radeons, ATA/66 hard drives and 768MB RAM. Plus, using 9, the G3 was already so fast that there was literally no delay when performing general tasks (web surfing, word processing, finder ops, etc). The G4 didn't seem any faster until I started compiling apps and running games and 3D apps (and X).

I also did performance measurements on each system (43 different tests in both X and 9). Overall 9 was 2.92 times as fast, and X was 4.47 times as fast, but most of that speedup (in both OSs) came from increased frame rates in games.

[quote]Originally posted by Fluffy:
<strong>

But you have to remember that you were going from a 603e with no backside cache (256K system cache) and a 50MHz bus with probably the stock Rage2 graphics (??) and probably the stock slow hard disk to a G4 with 1 MB of backside cache, a fast system bus, a decent drive and a very fast graphics system. On my systems the only thing that really changed was the processor and bus... both systems had Radeons, ATA/66 hard drives and 768MB RAM. Plus, using 9, the G3 was already so fast that there was literally no delay when performing general tasks (web surfing, word processing, finder ops, etc). The G4 didn't seem any faster until I started compiling apps and running games and 3D apps (and X).

I also did performance measurements on each system (43 different tests in both X and 9). Overall 9 was 2.92 times as fast, and X was 4.47 times as fast, but most of that speedup (in both OSs) came from increased frame rates in games.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Wow, even tho you went from a G3 to a dual 800 G4? mm, I have a G4 450 and want the top of the line (if no G5 and I don't wait for it) so say a dual 1.0ghz. Does that mean I won't notice much a difference either day to day?

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>
Wow, even tho you went from a G3 to a dual 800 G4? mm, I have a G4 450 and want the top of the line (if no G5 and I don't wait for it) so say a dual 1.0ghz. Does that mean I won't notice much a difference either day to day?</strong><hr></blockquote>

If you want to run X you will! Holy **** even though the numbers weren't all that much better, X on the dual 800 feels 10x faster (very noticeable). X was almost unusable on the G3. If you were to go from a stock G4/450 to, say, a dual 1GHz G4 with DDR and a GeForce4 I think you'd be pleased with the difference, though even then it will be less than you are probably hoping. I have never used a G4/450 so I can't say for sure. But if you stay in 9 or if X feels fast enough for you, then I wouldn't waste my money; you won't be blown away like you were with the 6500-&gt;G4 jump. I'd wait the six - nine months or so for the G5, I can almost guarantee that you won't regret it.

[quote]Originally posted by Fluffy:
<strong>

If you want to run X you will! Holy **** even though the numbers weren't all that much better, X on the dual 800 feels 10x faster (very noticeable). X was almost unusable on the G3. If you were to go from a stock G4/450 to, say, a dual 1GHz G4 with DDR and a GeForce4 I think you'd be pleased with the difference, though even then it will be less than you are probably hoping. I have never used a G4/450 so I can't say for sure. But if you stay in 9 or if X feels fast enough for you, then I wouldn't waste my money; you won't be blown away like you were with the 6500-&gt;G4 jump. I'd wait the six - nine months or so for the G5, I can almost guarantee that you won't regret it.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Herein lies my dilema. My 450 is fine in 9 which I use 98% of the time because X is a 3 legged dog. I've been wanting to upgrade (money isn't an issue) since last July when the QS came out. They were ugly and not very exciting so I held off. I was hoping this show would bring the goodies. If the current QS s just speed bumped & nothing else then I will probably wait. Even tho I am anxious to get a new machine, I don't want to get current tech if next year's tech (G5) is 6 months away. Whatever machine I get will do me for at least 3 years. So I'd be pissed if I got a QS G4 dual 1.0ghz and then July has a dual 1.6ghz G5, DDR, faster bus, USB2, superdrive2, etc.

[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>People have made much of OS X being slow; sure, it is a little slower than OS 9, but I find it quite usable in terms of speed. Apple's upcoming machines will also make some of the speed issues become non-issues, for a variety of reasons.

If you'll accept that as a given for the moment (and if you've used a dual 800 G4 running OS X, it isn't much of a strech to see that future machines will run OS X more than well enough), I'd like to ask what you really need more speed for?

Yes, some intensive applications such as Maya can always benefit from more speed -- and high-end gaming (which is a small part of the gaming market) is always good for the churn cycle that keeps hardware manufacturers happy.

However, there is a real crisis in the PC industry (both Mac and Wintel), and that crisis has nothing to do with any mhz gap. It has to do with trying to convince people that they actually need faster machines.

For what most people do with there computers, buying any modern machine (Mac, PC, whatever) gets folks more horsepower than they know what to do with. I really do think that the PC industry needs to move into refinement and user experience -- what people actually get out of using their machines -- rather than relying simply the "faster" crutch to sell their machines.

This makes perceived MHz gaps slightly less relevent than many folks think. Apple is well positioned to deliver refinement and real-world benefits to people, which is what computers are all about. Many vendors in the PC market are having problems with this transition; simply selling faster commodity PCs isn't cutting it anymore. Most people are using ridiculously overpowered computers to check eMail and surf the web.

Yes, true computer enthusiasts -- just like car lovers -- will always be interested faster, drool-worthy machines. Meanwhile they'll probably drive their Accord or Saturn to work, and not think there's any connection between the two. </strong><hr></blockquote>

[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>People have made much of OS X being slow; sure, it is a little slower than OS 9, but I find it quite usable in terms of speed. Apple's upcoming machines will also make some of the speed issues become non-issues, for a variety of reasons.

If you'll accept that as a given for the moment (and if you've used a dual 800 G4 running OS X, it isn't much of a strech to see that future machines will run OS X more than well enough), I'd like to ask what you really need more speed for?

Yes, some intensive applications such as Maya can always benefit from more speed -- and high-end gaming (which is a small part of the gaming market) is always good for the churn cycle that keeps hardware manufacturers happy.

However, there is a real crisis in the PC industry (both Mac and Wintel), and that crisis has nothing to do with any mhz gap. It has to do with trying to convince people that they actually need faster machines.

For what most people do with there computers, buying any modern machine (Mac, PC, whatever) gets folks more horsepower than they know what to do with. I really do think that the PC industry needs to move into refinement and user experience -- what people actually get out of using their machines -- rather than relying simply the "faster" crutch to sell their machines.

This makes perceived MHz gaps slightly less relevent than many folks think. Apple is well positioned to deliver refinement and real-world benefits to people, which is what computers are all about. Many vendors in the PC market are having problems with this transition; simply selling faster commodity PCs isn't cutting it anymore. Most people are using ridiculously overpowered computers to check eMail and surf the web.

Yes, true computer enthusiasts -- just like car lovers -- will always be interested faster, drool-worthy machines. Meanwhile they'll probably drive their Accord or Saturn to work, and not think there's any connection between the two. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Well Said!

The point is for most people MHz means nothing! Does anyone here who's threatening to switch to Wintel really believe they'll be more productive on a PC? We use G4 450s in my (design) department and vastly outperform our PC based Media dept. For them, everything is a problem and I hear the phrase "so much easier on a Mac" everyday!

[quote]Originally posted by philbot:
[QB][/QB]<hr></blockquote>

I've read that. While I respect and like Moki, that doesn't apply to me. Yes, the top of the line G4 released on Monday may be 'fast enough'. However, it will not be so fast 2 years from now when Photoshop 8 needs 500megs or RAM and minimum proc speeds are G4 1.2 etc. My decision comes down to which tech will last the longest:

QS G4 1.0ghz + no DDR, no faster bus, USB 1, current superdrive

G5 1.4ghz+, DDR, faster bus, superdrive 2, USB2,

that's my dilema.