What other processors are widely available to run standard Windows +apps for the desktop that are faster than the P4? I'm hardly confusing Mhz for speed. Yes P4 is the fastest, and though it doesn't have the highest IPC, it has so many C's that not even the fastest Athlon can beat the 2.4 and 2.53. None. P4 IS THE MOST POWERFUL. Athlon comes close on some tasks, but the latest P4 core is fastest, and when it comes to streaming media, it is the fastest by quite a margin. Timed test or Benchmark, you can't find one set in any PC publication where the latest P4's fail to come out on top. So what's left in the x86 World? Via? Transmeta? Nope. AMD and Intel are the ONLY PLAYERS that matter for desktop (Windows environment) and of those two Intel is currently the fastest (most powerful, gets work done in the shortest amount of time, OK, I think that covers it ), though AMD does hold a price/performance edge.
<strong>Whoever wrote that passage has no idea about processors. A 1.7Ghz athlon doesn't come anywhere close to destroying a 2.4Ghz P4. The P4 is ahead in most tasks and it destroys the Athlon in any streaming media task. Plentiful benchmarks and timed tests in the PC publication world confirm this. This guy's head is in his ass.
However, I to did hear something about the way Intel counts cycles in the P4 and that a particular part of the proc performs twice as fast (but half as much work) as the rest of it. hence 2.4/1.2. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER, P4 has the MOST OUTRIGHT PERFORMANCE of ANY CONSUMER DESKTOP CHIP.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can show you equally as many benchmarks tht shows that the P4 is all hat and no cattle, and that the Athlon can keep up and in many cases exceed the P4 at a FRACTION of the price.
<strong>What other processors are widely available to run standard Windows +apps for the desktop that are faster than the P4? I'm hardly confusing Mhz for speed. Yes P4 is the fastest, and though it doesn't have the highest IPC, it has so many C's that not even the fastest Athlon can beat the 2.4 and 2.53. None. P4 IS THE MOST POWERFUL. Athlon comes close on some tasks, but the latest P4 core is fastest, and when it comes to streaming media, it is the fastest by quite a margin. Timed test or Benchmark, you can't find one set in any PC publication where the latest P4's fail to come out on top. So what's left in the x86 World? Via? Transmeta? Nope. AMD and Intel are the ONLY PLAYERS that matter for desktop (Windows environment) and of those two Intel is currently the fastest (most powerful, gets work done in the shortest amount of time, OK, I think that covers it ), though AMD does hold a price/performance edge.</strong><hr></blockquote>
While the PIV is a very nice chip the PIII Xenon is still faster on a desktop workstation. I should also note that the PIV Xenon 2.4 is a VERY fast processor. However, the Athlon is almost just as fast as the PIV Xenon 2.4 with Hyperthreading. (You would be amazed at how close it is to the PIV Xenon 2.4...nearly no one would notice that it is slower.)
I just chose to go with dual PIV Xenon 2.4's in a server. The ONLY reason I didn't go with the Athlon is there isn't a complete package (like Dell has) with redundant everything! (see Dell PowerEdge 2650)
You may be correct for a home user. I really haven't purchased a desktop x86 machine in a couple years...just servers. AMD has also seemed to hit a brick wall right now where Intel continues to go faster and faster with the PIV and new PIII server chips.
While the PIV is a very nice chip the PIII Xenon is still faster on a desktop workstation. I should also note that the PIV Xenon 2.4 is a VERY fast processor. However, the Athlon is almost just as fast as the PIV Xenon 2.4 with Hyperthreading. (You would be amazed at how close it is to the PIV Xenon 2.4...nearly no one would notice that it is slower.)
I just chose to go with dual PIV Xenon 2.4's in a server. The ONLY reason I didn't go with the Athlon is there isn't a complete package (like Dell has) with redundant everything! (see Dell PowerEdge 2650)
You may be correct for a home user. I really haven't purchased a desktop x86 machine in a couple years...just servers. AMD has also seemed to hit a brick wall right now where Intel continues to go faster and faster with the PIV and new PIII server chips.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For Pete's Sake...
It's XEON!!! Xenon is a noble gas, not a processor.
Hissy fit over. Sorry for the interruption. Just seen this typo about two dozen times on AI in the last week or so.
But at a local PC World today, the 2 gig plus AMD/Intel machines had noticeable more snap and zip in terms of OS response...but also more 'snap' when it came to launching and executing apps.
Sure, it's 'perception'...
I await 'power'Mac and 'X' performance improvements with interest.
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. I like mirroring the ibooks display on a 21 inch monitor. 'X' truly is more beautiful than XP...
<strong>Computers always seem faster in the shop - when they have no software installed to drag them down.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Too true, especially Windows 9x, 2000, and yes, Mac OS 9. They all fall victim to "cruft accretion." For Windows, Temp files and the registry just bloat. Also after a few months users will have a thousand little apps running in the system tray. (Who needs four chat programs?!?!)
<strong>i don't get it - why the shortfall of iMac sales? i thought a few month ago they had preorders for at least two month production time? did the 100$ increase have this effect? is the iMac less attractive because new PowerMacs are on their way? hmmm.... strange....</strong><hr></blockquote>
What? Other than the fact that they're ugly, overpriced, underpowered, pieces of disposable, unexpandable garbage?
Well, he's right on three counts: overpriced, underpowered, unexpandable. Yes, yes, there's always firewire, USB, Memory, and airport to cover most of the expansion one would ever need, but with QE set to play a MUCH bigger role, the ability to upgrade the graphics is very important.
Most who get an iMac have no idea what the hell a graphics card is, hahahahaha. Some on you take this way too seriously. There are plenty of people who just want a cool computer that works. My parents have a crt iMac and I have to tell them when to upgrade. I have to tell them to do everything to keep their system and software updated. My wife has the new iMac and as much as a mac head I am, I have to do the same for her. She has no idea what a graphics card is or does and that she may need to upgrade it.
Sure, there's some users that this may be important to, but a majority of iMac users aren't that into computers enough to worry about expandability. If you want expandibility get a tower.
Underpowered? HAhahaaha, yea, 800mhz (while the top chip is 1ghz) is underpowered <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> I've used my wife's iMac and it's by no means slow or underpowered.
But I'm sure you'll disagree, so I'll leave you to your ripping of Apple and complaining and whining and moaning and crying and...
But I'm sure you'll disagree, so I'll leave you to your ripping of Apple and complaining and whining and moaning and crying and...</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]but with QE set to play a MUCH bigger role, the ability to upgrade the graphics is very important.<hr></blockquote>
Why? You know the GeForce 2MX in the iMacs will work perfectly well with QE. They match QE's requirements... where's the problem? People who are going to buy iMacs won't need to upgrade their graphic cards for any reason I can think of. People who need big GPU power won't be getting iMacs to begin with... that's what the towers are for. So again I ask: where's the problem?
The iMac is now half a year out of date. The Geforce 2MX? It's really(!) out of date. It's about two years old and past its sell by date on a £1,600 computer. Heck, it was a budget card when it first arrived! The bus is crap and the ram speed is also crap for that price.
I'll show restraint here (as I know Amorph loves my 'current hardware' rants...)
All I'll say is: Future Hardware?
For £1,600:
17 inch LCD. A Geforce 4mx. DDR. A decent bus. A 1 gig G4...and Superdrive (and Superdrives on the PC side are getting cheaper!)
I don't think that's over the top. I'd probably say: maybe I'd buy at that.
Instead of driving down the price of the LCD iMac like they did with the original CRT iMac they introduce the eMac into the mainstream which I think is a cheap trick ala LCD iMac becomes the originally over priced Cube. Yeesh. Don't Apple ever learn from their mistakes?! Price them to fly off the shelves and they will. Apple just don't get it: critical mass. Take a hit on profits for market penetration/share.
Apple whinged about ram and LCD price spikes for the price increase...but the 15inch LCD, 2 gig XP Athlon with 512k of DDR/BUS huge hard drive with better Geforce 4mx graphics card etc is nearly £500 cheaper! Duh. Guess Apple like their margins.
Sorry it's off 'power'Mac Dorsal topic. But Dorsal is off topic...so it's no wonder nobody is really saying anything.
And sorry, the Geforce 2 Mx couldn't handle it's 32 bit colour mode two years ago...and was 'fair' at pro-3D. It was 'okay' then(!)
Comments
While we're waiting for Dorsal to make up his next report...here's a link to chew on.
Pantium 4 vs Pantium 3.
Like the G4 500 vs G4 733?
Pipelines. Trade offs. Seems you have to really rachet the mhz 'speed' to get the 'benefit' of going to deeper pipelines.
Hmmm. An interesting read. Even more so if Apple can get DDR 1.5 G4s out the door.
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 07-04-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
<strong>Whoever wrote that passage has no idea about processors. A 1.7Ghz athlon doesn't come anywhere close to destroying a 2.4Ghz P4. The P4 is ahead in most tasks and it destroys the Athlon in any streaming media task. Plentiful benchmarks and timed tests in the PC publication world confirm this. This guy's head is in his ass.
However, I to did hear something about the way Intel counts cycles in the P4 and that a particular part of the proc performs twice as fast (but half as much work) as the rest of it. hence 2.4/1.2. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER, P4 has the MOST OUTRIGHT PERFORMANCE of ANY CONSUMER DESKTOP CHIP.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can show you equally as many benchmarks tht shows that the P4 is all hat and no cattle, and that the Athlon can keep up and in many cases exceed the P4 at a FRACTION of the price.
So, well, who cares, in the end?
ting5
<strong>What other processors are widely available to run standard Windows +apps for the desktop that are faster than the P4? I'm hardly confusing Mhz for speed. Yes P4 is the fastest, and though it doesn't have the highest IPC, it has so many C's that not even the fastest Athlon can beat the 2.4 and 2.53. None. P4 IS THE MOST POWERFUL. Athlon comes close on some tasks, but the latest P4 core is fastest, and when it comes to streaming media, it is the fastest by quite a margin. Timed test or Benchmark, you can't find one set in any PC publication where the latest P4's fail to come out on top. So what's left in the x86 World? Via? Transmeta? Nope. AMD and Intel are the ONLY PLAYERS that matter for desktop (Windows environment) and of those two Intel is currently the fastest (most powerful, gets work done in the shortest amount of time, OK, I think that covers it
While the PIV is a very nice chip the PIII Xenon is still faster on a desktop workstation. I should also note that the PIV Xenon 2.4 is a VERY fast processor. However, the Athlon is almost just as fast as the PIV Xenon 2.4 with Hyperthreading. (You would be amazed at how close it is to the PIV Xenon 2.4...nearly no one would notice that it is slower.)
I just chose to go with dual PIV Xenon 2.4's in a server. The ONLY reason I didn't go with the Athlon is there isn't a complete package (like Dell has) with redundant everything! (see Dell PowerEdge 2650)
You may be correct for a home user. I really haven't purchased a desktop x86 machine in a couple years...just servers. AMD has also seemed to hit a brick wall right now where Intel continues to go faster and faster with the PIV and new PIII server chips.
<strong>
While the PIV is a very nice chip the PIII Xenon is still faster on a desktop workstation. I should also note that the PIV Xenon 2.4 is a VERY fast processor. However, the Athlon is almost just as fast as the PIV Xenon 2.4 with Hyperthreading. (You would be amazed at how close it is to the PIV Xenon 2.4...nearly no one would notice that it is slower.)
I just chose to go with dual PIV Xenon 2.4's in a server. The ONLY reason I didn't go with the Athlon is there isn't a complete package (like Dell has) with redundant everything! (see Dell PowerEdge 2650)
You may be correct for a home user. I really haven't purchased a desktop x86 machine in a couple years...just servers. AMD has also seemed to hit a brick wall right now where Intel continues to go faster and faster with the PIV and new PIII server chips.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For Pete's Sake...
It's XEON!!! Xenon is a noble gas, not a processor.
Hissy fit over. Sorry for the interruption. Just seen this typo about two dozen times on AI in the last week or so.
But at a local PC World today, the 2 gig plus AMD/Intel machines had noticeable more snap and zip in terms of OS response...but also more 'snap' when it came to launching and executing apps.
Sure, it's 'perception'...
I await 'power'Mac and 'X' performance improvements with interest.
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. I like mirroring the ibooks display on a 21 inch monitor. 'X' truly is more beautiful than XP...
<strong>Computers always seem faster in the shop - when they have no software installed to drag them down.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Too true, especially Windows 9x, 2000, and yes, Mac OS 9. They all fall victim to "cruft accretion." For Windows, Temp files and the registry just bloat. Also after a few months users will have a thousand little apps running in the system tray. (Who needs four chat programs?!?!)
For Classic, the System folder is the culprit.
Screed ...OT I know, but hey...
Oh BTW, 13 days...
<strong>i don't get it - why the shortfall of iMac sales? i thought a few month ago they had preorders for at least two month production time? did the 100$ increase have this effect? is the iMac less attractive because new PowerMacs are on their way? hmmm.... strange....</strong><hr></blockquote>
What? Other than the fact that they're ugly, overpriced, underpowered, pieces of disposable, unexpandable garbage?
[ 07-04-2002: Message edited by: keyboardf12 ]</p>
<strong>edit: he's not worth it.
[ 07-04-2002: Message edited by: keyboardf12 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Beat me to it.
Lemon Bon Bon
Sure, there's some users that this may be important to, but a majority of iMac users aren't that into computers enough to worry about expandability. If you want expandibility get a tower.
Underpowered? HAhahaaha, yea, 800mhz (while the top chip is 1ghz) is underpowered <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> I've used my wife's iMac and it's by no means slow or underpowered.
But I'm sure you'll disagree, so I'll leave you to your ripping of Apple and complaining and whining and moaning and crying and...
It is just Overpriced.
If the price were $899 for the bottom end, if would be flying off the shelves.
If the DVD-R iMac was $1199, it too would be flying into homes.
With all due respect, the problem is only the price.
If it had a 133Mhz bus, you could bump up the price by $100.
Oh, and the eMac is way overpriced at $1099.
<strong>
But I'm sure you'll disagree, so I'll leave you to your ripping of Apple and complaining and whining and moaning and crying and...</strong><hr></blockquote>
...and if I don't get it my way I won't play.
Why? You know the GeForce 2MX in the iMacs will work perfectly well with QE. They match QE's requirements... where's the problem? People who are going to buy iMacs won't need to upgrade their graphic cards for any reason I can think of. People who need big GPU power won't be getting iMacs to begin with... that's what the towers are for. So again I ask: where's the problem?
The iMac is now half a year out of date. The Geforce 2MX? It's really(!) out of date. It's about two years old and past its sell by date on a £1,600 computer. Heck, it was a budget card when it first arrived! The bus is crap and the ram speed is also crap for that price.
I'll show restraint here (as I know Amorph loves my 'current hardware' rants...)
All I'll say is: Future Hardware?
For £1,600:
17 inch LCD. A Geforce 4mx. DDR. A decent bus. A 1 gig G4...and Superdrive (and Superdrives on the PC side are getting cheaper!)
I don't think that's over the top. I'd probably say: maybe I'd buy at that.
Instead of driving down the price of the LCD iMac like they did with the original CRT iMac they introduce the eMac into the mainstream which I think is a cheap trick ala LCD iMac becomes the originally over priced Cube. Yeesh. Don't Apple ever learn from their mistakes?! Price them to fly off the shelves and they will. Apple just don't get it: critical mass. Take a hit on profits for market penetration/share.
Apple whinged about ram and LCD price spikes for the price increase...but the 15inch LCD, 2 gig XP Athlon with 512k of DDR/BUS huge hard drive with better Geforce 4mx graphics card etc is nearly £500 cheaper! Duh. Guess Apple like their margins.
Sorry it's off 'power'Mac Dorsal topic. But Dorsal is off topic...so it's no wonder nobody is really saying anything.
And sorry, the Geforce 2 Mx couldn't handle it's 32 bit colour mode two years ago...and was 'fair' at pro-3D. It was 'okay' then(!)
Lemon Bon Bon (Bump-ity-bump.)
[ 07-05-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]
[ 07-05-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>