It will continue until Intel chips get too hot and too big that wire delay and heat situations, along with fabrication issues, become too much of a problem. Given the current scenario, this won't happen too long from now.
If that's true, then it suggests that the 133 MHz system bus in Powermacs has been FASTER than anything on the Wintel side up until now. So if Apple's bus is so fast, why do people complain about it being a bottleneck?
My god this forum is ripe with stupidity...why must you go on and on like this? Apple users are indubitably the most small-minded, technically handicapped, ignorant dolts I have ever listened to.
this forum is obviously a stomping ground for invalids who feed off each others meaningless posts, because they have nothing material to offer. Please do not continue to make anymore speed comparisons between macs and pc's, it makes you sound desperate.
This isn't a apple flame, it's a stupidity flame. I own a G4 and aqua is very attractive, but it gets old. I would feel bad paying Apple anymore money for dated technology when the only thing it has to offer is a cute GUI.
I also don't need a limp-wristed case to make me think "different".
<strong>My god this forum is ripe with stupidity...why must you go on and on like this? Apple users are indubitably the most small-minded, technically handicapped, ignorant dolts I have ever listened to.
this forum is obviously a stomping ground for invalids who feed off each others meaningless posts, because they have nothing material to offer. Please do not continue to make anymore speed comparisons between macs and pc's, it makes you sound desperate.
This isn't a apple flame, it's a stupidity flame. I own a G4 and aqua is very attractive, but it gets old. I would feel bad paying Apple anymore money for dated technology when the only thing it has to offer is a cute GUI.
I also don't need a limp-wristed case to make me think "different".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you. We've heard these arguments before, and most of us know better than to (A) care or (B) take them beyond face value.
They aren't objective arguments. You'll have to do better to get us stupid mac users upset.
Thank you. We've heard these arguments before, and most of us know better than to (A) care or (B) take them beyond face value.
They aren't objective arguments. You'll have to do better to get us stupid mac users upset.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wouldn't dare try arguing in this forum, most are so entrenched in ingorance that they are defective beyond any rational thought. I have tried to find a shred of common sense, but it's useless. It's embarrassing, maybe one day a mac message board while arise for people offering a shred of knowledge.
I wouldn't dare try arguing in this forum, most are so entrenched in ingorance that they are defective beyond any rational thought. I have tried to find a shred of common sense, but it's useless. It's embarrassing, maybe one day a mac message board while arise for people offering a shred of knowledge.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you want to make fun of us, then I'll make fun of you. I would have rather emailed you, but since you're so clever as to go anonymous, I posted it.
One day a time will come for you, and you'll be in a situation where the playing videogames with your teenage friends and the dorky version of the high scool jock mentality (i.e. my computer is more elite that yours) will be of little concern. When you reach that point, which usually comes in college or in the workplace, where getting work done is more important that being the dominant male, so to speak, then you realize that the whole platform debacle is kind of stupid. What decision you make is up to you, but once you reach this point in your life, you tend to stop making the "my computer is better than yours" talk, perhaps out of maturity or whatnot.
I bought a Powerbook g4 because it looks nice.
Right now you're about 16, and I can't expect you to be knowledgable or mature enough to be seen as a source of information, or even as a valid, clear-headed opinion. One day you'll figure it out, and you won't care enough to make fun of us misguided Mac users, but until then just realize that I'm the only person who cares enough about you to respond.
Awesome, that way Apple can put its RAM prices back higher than the ceiling because they go back to non-standard. It all fits!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh.
Kidding aside, there would be nothing nonstandard about the RAM itself. Plain Jane DDR SDRAM would work fine.
<strong>Theoritical maximum throughput comparison.
New P4 533MHz bus - 533.333 million cycles per sec * 16 bits per cycle / 8 bits per byte = 1066.67MB/sec</strong><hr></blockquote>
Something was bugging me about your numbers for the longest time, and I finally figured out what is was (not that I have a great need to hype up some yucky PC-ware.)
The system bus on the P4 is still 64-bits, I'm pretty sure. It is the memory bus that is 8-bits wide and dual channel. So you have the wrongs sets of numbers put together to get your bandwidth. So it should be 533x64/8=4.2 GB/s on the system bus. The memory bus would be clocked somewhere above 800 Mhz (1066? I'm not sure where Rambus is at these days. I've also heard that the current Intel boards are not supporting the higher Rambus chips anyway, even though they technically could. So I think 800 is still the official limit, despite that more is possible.) So you get 800x8x2x2 (for DDR)/8=3.2 GB/s for the memory bus (more if you could use the higher speed Rambus chips that are out these days).
I also concur with the earlier comment that these aren't really 533 Mhz buses, but are 133 Mhz buses in a quad-data-rate configuration. You get all the data flow of a 533 Mhz bus, but random data accesses can bring down performance to an effective 133 Mhz bus. It sounds great, but the drawbacks can be just as influential in typical overall performance.
Interleaving has actually been done in a few high-end server motherboards a few years ago. In the absence of any of this "new-fangled" DDR/QDR stuff, it was the only way (and a good way) to get a memory performance boost while using conventional PC66/100 memory.
<strong>It will continue until Intel chips get too hot and too big that wire delay and heat situations, along with fabrication issues, become too much of a problem. Given the current scenario, this won't happen too long from now.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
We've heared that since the first Pentium 66mhz was out
no but seriously: and I quote: "our processors are slow, we're ****ed"
and I reinterate "our processors are slow, we're ****ed"
think about selling your Apple stock!!! if you have it . . . . I'm thinking about it seriouusly (I can't for the life of me understand why it went up today)
I remember when Intell reached one Ghz and that was in the distant past of, what, just over a year ago, and Apple was at 500Mhz, and they just beat that speed trap to get to a whopping 1Ghz.. . . .
that coupled with this interminable and ultra clumsy OSX transitioning is going to be the death knell . . . I've said it before and I re-it.
And we'll still have twice as many. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, it's not like you can't just buy a dual P4 machine anymore. In fact, you can easily buy a dual P4 Xeon machine for probably less than a dual g4. Essentially, using dual processors as way to compensate for the lack in Mhz doesn't hold.
Having a multiprocessor machine with OS X is quite awesome, granted the SMP implementation that we're all aware of. 2x 1.5 with a nice video card pumping Quartz Extreme would be quite nice for the 3D work I do. Does anyone know the ETA on that? NY?
Comments
Or until Intel FINALLY manages to get out IA-64.
<strong>
Still, there is one bit I don't understand:
If that's true, then it suggests that the 133 MHz system bus in Powermacs has been FASTER than anything on the Wintel side up until now. So if Apple's bus is so fast, why do people complain about it being a bottleneck?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wider, not faster, and not compared to DDR.
this forum is obviously a stomping ground for invalids who feed off each others meaningless posts, because they have nothing material to offer. Please do not continue to make anymore speed comparisons between macs and pc's, it makes you sound desperate.
This isn't a apple flame, it's a stupidity flame. I own a G4 and aqua is very attractive, but it gets old. I would feel bad paying Apple anymore money for dated technology when the only thing it has to offer is a cute GUI.
I also don't need a limp-wristed case to make me think "different".
<strong>My god this forum is ripe with stupidity...why must you go on and on like this? Apple users are indubitably the most small-minded, technically handicapped, ignorant dolts I have ever listened to.
this forum is obviously a stomping ground for invalids who feed off each others meaningless posts, because they have nothing material to offer. Please do not continue to make anymore speed comparisons between macs and pc's, it makes you sound desperate.
This isn't a apple flame, it's a stupidity flame. I own a G4 and aqua is very attractive, but it gets old. I would feel bad paying Apple anymore money for dated technology when the only thing it has to offer is a cute GUI.
I also don't need a limp-wristed case to make me think "different".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you. We've heard these arguments before, and most of us know better than to (A) care or (B) take them beyond face value.
They aren't objective arguments. You'll have to do better to get us stupid mac users upset.
<strong>
Thank you. We've heard these arguments before, and most of us know better than to (A) care or (B) take them beyond face value.
They aren't objective arguments. You'll have to do better to get us stupid mac users upset.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wouldn't dare try arguing in this forum, most are so entrenched in ingorance that they are defective beyond any rational thought. I have tried to find a shred of common sense, but it's useless. It's embarrassing, maybe one day a mac message board while arise for people offering a shred of knowledge.
<strong>
I wouldn't dare try arguing in this forum, most are so entrenched in ingorance that they are defective beyond any rational thought. I have tried to find a shred of common sense, but it's useless. It's embarrassing, maybe one day a mac message board while arise for people offering a shred of knowledge.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you want to make fun of us, then I'll make fun of you. I would have rather emailed you, but since you're so clever as to go anonymous, I posted it.
One day a time will come for you, and you'll be in a situation where the playing videogames with your teenage friends and the dorky version of the high scool jock mentality (i.e. my computer is more elite that yours) will be of little concern. When you reach that point, which usually comes in college or in the workplace, where getting work done is more important that being the dominant male, so to speak, then you realize that the whole platform debacle is kind of stupid. What decision you make is up to you, but once you reach this point in your life, you tend to stop making the "my computer is better than yours" talk, perhaps out of maturity or whatnot.
I bought a Powerbook g4 because it looks nice.
Right now you're about 16, and I can't expect you to be knowledgable or mature enough to be seen as a source of information, or even as a valid, clear-headed opinion. One day you'll figure it out, and you won't care enough to make fun of us misguided Mac users, but until then just realize that I'm the only person who cares enough about you to respond.
<strong>
Awesome, that way Apple can put its RAM prices back higher than the ceiling because they go back to non-standard. It all fits!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh.
Kidding aside, there would be nothing nonstandard about the RAM itself. Plain Jane DDR SDRAM would work fine.
<strong>
I bought a Powerbook g4 because it looks nice.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you, adios.
<strong>Theoritical maximum throughput comparison.
New P4 533MHz bus - 533.333 million cycles per sec * 16 bits per cycle / 8 bits per byte = 1066.67MB/sec</strong><hr></blockquote>
Something was bugging me about your numbers for the longest time, and I finally figured out what is was (not that I have a great need to hype up some yucky PC-ware.)
The system bus on the P4 is still 64-bits, I'm pretty sure. It is the memory bus that is 8-bits wide and dual channel. So you have the wrongs sets of numbers put together to get your bandwidth. So it should be 533x64/8=4.2 GB/s on the system bus. The memory bus would be clocked somewhere above 800 Mhz (1066? I'm not sure where Rambus is at these days. I've also heard that the current Intel boards are not supporting the higher Rambus chips anyway, even though they technically could. So I think 800 is still the official limit, despite that more is possible.) So you get 800x8x2x2 (for DDR)/8=3.2 GB/s for the memory bus (more if you could use the higher speed Rambus chips that are out these days).
I also concur with the earlier comment that these aren't really 533 Mhz buses, but are 133 Mhz buses in a quad-data-rate configuration. You get all the data flow of a 533 Mhz bus, but random data accesses can bring down performance to an effective 133 Mhz bus. It sounds great, but the drawbacks can be just as influential in typical overall performance.
Interleaving has actually been done in a few high-end server motherboards a few years ago. In the absence of any of this "new-fangled" DDR/QDR stuff, it was the only way (and a good way) to get a memory performance boost while using conventional PC66/100 memory.
[ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong>It will continue until Intel chips get too hot and too big that wire delay and heat situations, along with fabrication issues, become too much of a problem. Given the current scenario, this won't happen too long from now.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
We've heared that since the first Pentium 66mhz was out
and I reinterate "our processors are slow, we're ****ed"
think about selling your Apple stock!!! if you have it . . . . I'm thinking about it seriouusly (I can't for the life of me understand why it went up today)
I remember when Intell reached one Ghz and that was in the distant past of, what, just over a year ago, and Apple was at 500Mhz, and they just beat that speed trap to get to a whopping 1Ghz.. . . .
that coupled with this interminable and ultra clumsy OSX transitioning is going to be the death knell . . . I've said it before and I re-it.
(but,I may be just provoking)
Apparently, Apple responded to the 5-15% performance gain of going DDR by ekeing 10-20% more performance out of their SDR bus. Gotta love engineers.
That makes me wonder what kind of performance we'll see when Apple does go DDR.
<strong> This is serious, we are no longer talking about the competition being clocked twice as fast...soon it will be 3 times as fastÂ*Â*
</strong><hr></blockquote>
At the rate we are going, G4s will be @ 1.5GHZ when the 3GHZ Intels come out. Will still only be twice as fast.
<strong>
At the rate we are going, G4s will be @ 1.5GHZ when the 3GHZ Intels come out. Will still only be twice as fast.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And we'll still have twice as many.
<strong>
And we'll still have twice as many.
Yeah, it's not like you can't just buy a dual P4 machine anymore. In fact, you can easily buy a dual P4 Xeon machine for probably less than a dual g4. Essentially, using dual processors as way to compensate for the lack in Mhz doesn't hold.