Apple even slower than SGI with new technologies!

timortistimortis
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
SGI has become known lately with their snail-like pace in updating their workstations.



The O2 line received its firts update in years, this summer at Siggraph and it was merely a bump.



The Octane 2 hadn't been updated for more than 18 months.



But even they beat Apple to a 200 Mhz FSB and DDR RAM with their new workstation. Congrats Apple! You are the only remaining graphical workstation vendor to use SDRAM! Yay!



Here are the specs for the interested:



[quote]Processor Single MIPS® 64-bit R14000A processor, 500 MHz with 2MB L2 cache or 600 MHz with 4MB L2 cache; 200 MHz front-side bus



Graphics Integrated vertex processing engine



Integrated image and texture engine



12-bit per component color and alpha (V10, V12), double-buffered (V12) 16-bit 2 buffer ( V12 only)



24-bit eye space Z buffer and 8-bit stencil



10-bit digital to analog (DAC) display interface



Multiple concurrent visuals (8-bit window ID)



V10: 32MB graphics memory, including up to 8MB texture memory



V12: 128MB graphics memory, including up to 104MB texture memory



Resolution up to 1920x1200 pixels @ 60 Hz and 72 Hz



Support for dual channel and stereo viewing mode



Memory 512MB-4GB synchronous double-data rate RAM (DDR SDRAM) <hr></blockquote>



Well at least at least we beat them to the Ghz.



Having said that a 500 Mhz R14000 scores higher than an Athlon 1400 on specfp. MIPS chips have really great IPC. I'm afraid I can't say the same for the 1Ghz PowerPC.



[ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: timortis ]</p>
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 36
    kikaidakikaida Posts: 17member
    Is this future hardware?



    Anyway, how much does it cost?
  • Reply 2 of 36
    spookyspooky Posts: 504member
    SGI are the only ones for whom the Mhz myth is really true. With apple its a question of how you cook the books.



    Dump MOTO, buy SGi and put their workstation innards (especially their graphics syubsystems) into a quicksilver case
  • Reply 2 of 36
    timortistimortis Posts: 149member
    [quote]Originally posted by kikaida:

    <strong>Is this future hardware?



    Anyway, how much does it cost?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    It is Futurre Hardware, it's questioning when Apple will finally get back with the rest of the industry and adopt a faster memory technology.
  • Reply 4 of 36
    kikaidakikaida Posts: 17member
    You never asked that question in your original post, just berated apple for not having said technology.
  • Reply 5 of 36
    bellebelle Posts: 1,574member
    [quote]Originally posted by kikaida:

    <strong>Anyway, how much does it cost?</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Entry level machine is $11,495 without monitor.

    [quote]Originally posted by spooky:

    <strong>Dump MOTO, buy SGi and put their workstation innards (especially their graphics syubsystems) into a quicksilver case</strong><hr></blockquote>

    And charge the price of a small family car?



    The Power Mac is a general purpose workstation, not a specialized high-end graphics workstation. If you need the power of an SGI machine, buy an SGI machine, help keep them in business.
  • Reply 6 of 36
    timortistimortis Posts: 149member
    [quote]Originally posted by kikaida:

    <strong>You never asked that question in your original post, just berated apple for not having said technology.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well yeah, I happen to think they have been deserving of a well-placed kick in the groin with the situation of the PowerMacs lately, if that's what you mean.



    What is an expressed disappointment with Apple's current hardware choices, if it's not hoping for better future hardware?
  • Reply 7 of 36
    timortistimortis Posts: 149member
    [quote]Originally posted by Belle:

    <strong>

    And charge the price of a small family car?



    The Power Mac is a general purpose workstation, not a specialized high-end graphics workstation. If you need the power of an SGI machine, buy an SGI machine, help keep them in business.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Price is not the issue though you see. Faster RAM can also be had with a $1500 or cheaper computer.
  • Reply 8 of 36
    bellebelle Posts: 1,574member
    [quote]Originally posted by timortis:

    <strong>Price is not the issue though you see. Faster RAM can also be had with a $1500 or cheaper computer.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Any idea what difference faster RAM would make to performance of the current Power Macs? None.



    Any idea what difference adding all the other stuff you need alongside faster RAM to noticably improve performance would make to Apple's bottom line costs? And what difference that would make to retail price?
  • Reply 9 of 36
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    I would recomend picking up an SGI if you ever get the chance.
  • Reply 10 of 36
    timortistimortis Posts: 149member
    [quote]Originally posted by Belle:

    <strong>

    Any idea what difference faster RAM would make to performance of the current Power Macs? None.



    Any idea what difference adding all the other stuff you need alongside faster RAM to noticably improve performance would make to Apple's bottom line costs? And what difference that would make to retail price?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Are you getting testy?





    No, I don't have precise first-hand information on how much a performance improvement it would bring, if any. But you seem to, so please share...



    If I were to guess though, I would reason two 1 Ghz processors processing vector data in 128 bit chunks could use RAM that's twice as fast. Apple seems to think that way too, since they are hyping their DDR L3 cache like there's no other.



    [ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: timortis ]</p>
  • Reply 11 of 36
    bellebelle Posts: 1,574member
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:

    <strong>I would recomend picking up an SGI if you ever get the chance.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    I couldn't agree more. If you're serious about modeling and animation, you can pick up older models for not much more than a high-end Pentium or Athlon machine. You can also pick up used copies of software pretty cheap, and you get to play with the lovely IRIX, and have access to a lot of custom graphics software that's currently not available on other platforms. It does help if you're comfortable with compiling, though.
  • Reply 12 of 36
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Well, SGI is in a predicament...they really lost their identity when they switched logos. It was pretty ironic. They hastily purchased the remnants of Cray. They largely failed in their Linux/Intel experiment (an overpriced, underpowered Itanium is all that remains.) Their supercomputers are being overshadowed by IBM and Sun's competition...or cheaper clusters.



    I don't MIPS can carry them into the future, since they are increasingly focused on embedded apps...even more so than Motorola.



    Hmm, Belle, "lovely IRIX?" ... HAH.



    [ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 36
    davechendavechen Posts: 56member
    They're definitely in a bind, but all the recent MIPS processors that SGI uses have been designed by SGI. Like you say, MIPS is concentrating on the embedded and console markets. Therefor SGI has had to design there own chips, I think since the R10k's, or maybe R12k's.



    Their problem is that they're fighting for survival, and designing CPUs take a hugh amount of resources. There have been rumors of them moving to G5's.



    dave
  • Reply 13 of 36
    timortistimortis Posts: 149member
    [quote]Originally posted by Belle:

    <strong>

    I couldn't agree more. If you're serious about modeling and animation, you can pick up older models for not much more than a high-end Pentium or Athlon machine.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I used to use an Octane 2 at my previous job. My new workplace uses P4 Xeons. I have been thinking of getting my own SGI since I switched jobs, but the Octane line had been stale for too long to actually tempt me.



    This Fuel thingie does sound like a really nice toy though, but I'd want the high-end, which is usally at the $40,000 "sweet spot" with SGI.



    Maybe I'll give myself a birthday present this fall . I have to look into how much of it is deductible.
  • Reply 15 of 36
    bellebelle Posts: 1,574member
    [quote]Originally posted by timortis:

    <strong>Are you getting testy?

    </strong><hr></blockquote>

    No. Sorry.



    I've been posting in a new, more... uh... economical style of late, and I do seem to come across as a little bitchy. I think some of my posts elsewhere have accidently angered some people. It's actually quite good fun.

    [quote]<strong>No, I don't have precise first-hand information on how much a performance improvement it would bring, if any. But you seem to, so please share...<hr></blockquote></strong>

    I don't have any nice charts or Quake3 frame rate thingies...

    [quote]<strong>If I were to guess though, I would reason two 1 Ghz processors processing vector data in 128 bit chunks could use RAM that's twice as fast. Apple seems to think that way too, since they are hyping their DDR L3 cache like there's no other.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Quite probably, but honestly it would produce no noticable improvements in performance - either by use or by those nice colorful charts and Quake3 frame rates.



    If you had faster RAM, buses, etc. you might get some chartable performance improvements, but I'm not certain that even two 1GHz G4s would crunch numbers fast enough to saturate it all.



    [ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>
  • Reply 16 of 36
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by Belle:

    <strong>

    Quite probably, but honestly it would produce no noticable improvements in performance - either by use or by those nice colorful charts and Quake3 frame rates.



    If you had faster RAM, buses, etc. you might get some chartable performance improvements, but I'm not certain that even two 1GHz G4s would crunch numbers fast enough to saturate it all.



    [ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    but the mot FAQ that I posted last week said otherwise and at the time of the mot faq posting G4s were well below 1ghz nevermind 2 of them
  • Reply 17 of 36
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by applenut:

    <strong>



    but the mot FAQ that I posted last week said otherwise and at the time of the mot faq posting G4s were well below 1ghz nevermind 2 of them</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I'd also refer you to this thread

    <a href="http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=336095374 3&p=3" target="_blank">http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=336095374 3&p=3</a>



    which states that even a dual 533 is starved of bandwidth and that a single G4/1Ghz is also.
  • Reply 18 of 36
    uwsaltuwsalt Posts: 8member
    [quote]Any idea what difference faster RAM would make to performance of the current Power Macs? None.<hr></blockquote>



    This is just flat out wrong. Make sure you read the thread applenut referenced.
  • Reply 19 of 36
    koffedrnkrkoffedrnkr Posts: 170member
    there was a rumor (i think on the register) recently about SGI's interest in the G5 as a MIPS replacement. according to the article, development costs for MIPS was killing SGI...and i suppose that makes sense.



    wouldn't it be interesting to see a new AIS alliance of apple, IBM and SGI. IBM could provide the fabrication technologies, SGI could provide some technology from MIPS and their own mobos and apple would provide the market (and marketing). lots of interesting possibilities there....
  • Reply 20 of 36
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    My boss should replace his Indigo2 that he's using. I think he's too smart thought. Moving to a new UNIX box can take a week or more.
Sign In or Register to comment.