<strong>for a substantial part the discussion regarding the powermac's speed is about image and marketing. If you pay topdollar for a mercedes s500, you want it to have a topspeed of at least 155 mph (in europe that is). you will probably not drive so fast because of the prevailing speedlimits, but if its topspeed is only 100 mph you do not want to have it, even if its roadholding is superior. so whether or not you need the high topspeed, if you have to pay for you want to have it. now the owner of a mercedes 200 diesel: still a very good car, but with a very low topspeed and excellent roadholding. for the mercedes 200 owner it is very important that the make's topmodel is very fast, part of the value of the diesel is derived from the image of its topmodel.from this perspective it is imperative for apple that it has a topnotch topmodel powermac that is at least as fast or faster as the competition, even when only few users need it.
that said and being a mercedes s500 driver myself, i do not use my apple for sophisticated tasks but i get very sick when my nephew surfes the internet way faster than me on a brandless PC. i want instant rendering of webpages or whatever you call it (with a broadband connection) and have no use for an apple that has to think (different) for 10 seconds more than my nephews PC.
pim</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with the above statement, and would like to add that anyone out there buying a new computer knows you would like it to be competitive today, and tomorow.
Resale is a selling factor. If Apple does not start skiping over some MHz milestones it's going to be quite hard to sell a Mac in a 2 to 3 GHz+ performance gap vs. the PC side.
The only thing Apple has going for it right now is OS 10. The second you start to believe that Microslosh isn't trying to combat this problem with a semi sutable answer on their OS in house you've already lost the battle.
All the headlines need to read is that M$ has a usable product, and the ball will be back in their court. The user base is already established for M$, and the switch campaign only works when your looking good, and that is what OS 10 is doing, but the Macintosh itself is not.
That is the problem that needs to be addressed.
YAR you seem to be placing blame on us, rather than knowing what some of the real problems really are.
As I said I think Apple needs to start jumping over some MHz gaps.
I've heard in the past from people here that Apple wont do that because they will lose sales from those skiped over MHz machines that they dont sell. But I can tell you as fact that they have lost at least one sale this year because they can't put the "Power" back into the PowerMac. And that's why I wait.
If there is a GHz gap I'm not buying, and I'm going to have to start looking for a suitable Unix/LInux alternative.
pim_fortuyn, good post. And it reminds me of question. I read often that Internet pages load so much faster on PCs. But, is that Motorola's fault of Apple's? In other words, is that simply a processor problem or is it more complicated? I mean a slower-clocked processor would not seem to account for magnitude of the delays loading pages. Finally, will OSX.2 help with this?
(Perhaps I should ask this question elsewhere but bear with me, pim_fortuyn's post jogged my memory)
Hehe maybe Lemon is poor like me and had to do with what I like to call the "Circuit City Special" Seriously, Macs are WAY too expensive. They're not workstations, yet they're priced like they are! They either need to be cheaper or more powerful, or both. While JYD is inflammatory he's right. Apple is currently in trouble. If PowerMacs and PowerBooks (they have fat margins) don't start selling (read: get faster) then Apple may lose money instead of make it.
I am limping along until the next tower with an iBook combo 500 ($800 at CC.) However may I suggest a PowerBook Lemon Bon Bon? Portables are fun aren't they? :cool:
Oh yeah, besides, all you people who say we don't need power: aren't you the same people who say we should get OS X? Ever seen it on an old iBook?
[quote] "To maximize data bandwidth and reduce memory latency, Motorola Inc. said it will likely integrate a DRAM controller directly onto a future high-end PowerPC processor ... By doing so, the processor could bypass an external bus and have a direct link to the DRAM. ... "It makes a lot more sense to add high-speed memory controllers on processors," ... "Anytime you have a bus, you have to arbitrate for the bus. Rather than let it go hungry, you could feed the processor as fast as it can be fed." <hr></blockquote>
<strong>pim_fortuyn, good post. And it reminds me of question. I read often that Internet pages load so much faster on PCs. But, is that Motorola's fault of Apple's? In other words, is that simply a processor problem or is it more complicated? I mean a slower-clocked processor would not seem to account for magnitude of the delays loading pages. Finally, will OSX.2 help with this?
(Perhaps I should ask this question elsewhere but bear with me, pim_fortuyn's post jogged my memory)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmm. In what browser? I would think that would have more to do with it than anything else.
To give an example....explorer on 9 was slow as dirt, so I changed to Opera, which was noticeably faster. Now that I'm on X, explorer and opera are slow as dirt (the new explorer has corrected some of this), so I use chimera....it may be beta, but it's the fastest thing out there.
BTW, chimera's creator was just hired on at Apple, which hopefully means we'll see an Apple branded browser (it already looks like Mail) shortly.
Regarding speed of different browsers, I just saw an article in the recent Mac World comparing brower speed in OS9 and OSX. Its useful. But, did not compare between Mac and PC.
I also found a site--Broadband Optimizer--that offers a program that promise to speed downloads.
I dont have broadband yet so I can't vouch for it.
Regarding speed of different browsers, I just saw an article in the recent Mac World comparing brower speed in OS9 and OSX. Its useful. But, did not compare between Mac and PC.
I also found a site--Broadband Optimizer--that offers a program that promise to speed downloads.
I dont have broadband yet so I can't vouch for it.
Yep. Been using BO for about six months on all my X machines. It actually made quite a difference, as it causes the machine to take network data in 2meg chunks. It even made a difference on just the speed between machines. Chimera still beats the pants off explorer tho'....
The 'current' hardware rants from me...I'm trying real hard at the mo'...therapy...and the pending August release have me biting my tongue But my rants are usually in relation to what Apple SHOULD have. ie future hardware
The iBook is not mine. It's my wife's. If I ask nicely, I get to use it...
It's okay for Photoshop even on 300dpi work(well, better than my old Apple clone was before I sold it at Christmas...) Still, the 384megs of ram helps. As opposed to the old limit of 160 megs (that's all the old 'clone' could take...)
Still...
'Yet another'. There isn't alot new in terms of what people say on these boards. By myself, you or anybody else. You spend your time hoovering up after JD has trashed Apple (which is fun to read...I love Apple...but they have their faults...cruelly exposed by JD and Matsu...)
We're due for a 'power'Mac upgrade this August. I hope it makes 'whinging' mute. I think it's a close call between 'catch up' and Apple really surprising us? Something they haven't done too much of late. At least not where the pro' line is concerned.
I have an Athlon. I got it because it was 'required'. It opened my eyes to 'Workstation' level performance. Something the G4 prices itself as but doesn't have.
JD, I like your brutal style. Your heart's in the right place. At first, when you started on these boards, I wasn't sure if you be troll or what. But it was sure fun to read! These days? It's still fun to read!! You make your point. I think these boards need a Matsu, a JD to keep the 'apologists' or the 'apathetics' from losing the plot. Being resigned to inferior performance...if Apple truly believed that? Eventually they'd sink. All style and no subtance? oS 'x' alone won't save them. They've got to compete in hardware too. At the moment they're out on cpu performance, ram, bus...overpriced at old kit.
Performance does matter.
What does Lemon use his computers for?
3D. Photoshop. etc. I can assure you...I've worked with dual 1 giggers on Photoshop...and they are okay. But they're no workstation material. The Athlon buries them perception wise. Performance in 3D? As benches on net show? Suspect.
'Yet Another'. Don't presume knowing what people or 'most' people on these boards use their computers for.
Me? Like said, '3D'.
Includes loads of textures. Lots of polygons. Faster rendering of previews...tweaking. It's boring, fun and challenging. The 'boring' bit comes from NOT having enough performance. 3D folks always need more. A 1.6XP Athlon with 1 gig of DDR ISN'T enough. I do scenes that bring it to its knees...and the Ati 8500 sucks it up and chokes... Why would I buy something twice the price for half or similar to the said Athlon performance?
IF Apple are positioning themselves as high end software...they better get 'high end' kit to go with it. The 'behind the times' G4 doesn't cut it. It's got to almost double its 3D rendering to draw level with a low end Xp Athlon. It's got to do something really special to overtake it.
Ati and Nvidia are doing their bit on the graphic card front.
Fine for moving the graphics around. BUT, the scenes STILL have to be rendered...and I'd like some real performance please. The G4 has been coming in dribs and drabs over the last several years. Bout time we had something to make a real difference to rendering workflow!
Can't afford it? What does that have to do with if I or somebody else wants a fast computer. Tech' marches on. Only Motorola and Apple have difficulty with this concept.
I could buy a Widescreen iMac and two dual 'power'Macs. Between them...they might equal a dual Athlon...
I'd love to have a 'power'Mac again. But for now...I use the Athlon and wait on Apple's move to the next gen'.
The iBook? When I lend it...I plug it into a 21 inch monitor. 'X' looks nice on it, by the way! The 21 inch monitor awaits a true 'power'Mac pretender to the throne.
I'll survive for now
Seeing as we're in future hardware lands...let's imagine that Apple's hardware actually matched the Apple software!!! Great thought, eh?
I thought that all these recent benchmarks would shut up the whiners here who think that performance doesn't matter. Alas, looking under your post, I see that it's only ruffled their feathers.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
First, I don't think there is anyone that will argue that more power is needed for Macs. That said, let's put things in better perspective.
Reading through the digitalvideoediting.com's article, it seemed rather biased to me. In addition to the wording used, look at the graphs. They show these huge graphs making it look like there is a world of difference in performance, when one computer finishes in 1 second, and the other in 2 seconds. Big deal.
When challenged over the validity of the initial results, Steinberg even used the standard PS_Bench. If PS_Bench backs up Steinberg's results, I'm inclined to believe him over the guy from DVE.
As for digital video editing, who is still using Premiere, and why? Any serious user on the PC side would be using Avid. On the Mac, you'd be using FCP or Avid. Adobe hasn't been doing squat for the Mac side of Premiere for some time. The upcoming 6.5 won't have DVD authoring, etc. as the PC side will apparently. Likewise, since you can count the number of Mac Premiere users on one hand, I doubt there's much optimization going on. There surely is no difference between single and dual processors as far as I can tell. This is clearly not the case with FCP.
[quote]Originally posted by UberInstaller:
<strong>
We are with you on some things- CPU speed, DDR, FSB, but come on... how much longer do we all have to endure your little proclamations of "I will not buy because" or "I will only buy when Apple..." Hate to break it to you- you are just one person, and I personally do not care when you, if ever, buy another Mac. Sometimes I catch myself wishing you would go ahead and buy that dual Athlon and get out of here, to save all of us your incessant bitching. You and JYD are becoming rather tiresome. Broken records, er, hard drives, clicking away with no new data.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
LOL! I couldn't have said it better! Really, I like to pop in on these forums every now and then. Though, it gets very tiresome weeding through these doom and gloom posts. Quite frankly, I could care less what it will take for either of you to buy a Mac or your next Mac, or why you think Apple is doomed if they don't have certain features this time, etc.
"Don't forget that the rumored 7470 is supposed to have a rumored 12 pipeline stages, which would mean that it could scale to at least 1.4GHz. I'm guessing it could reach 2GHz. "
Some fella from Macnn forums.
So...does the 7470 have a 12 stage pipeline? Surely not. The current chip has 7 stages? Surely 10 would be more realistic? .13 gives opportunities for design revisits? ie a new process...chance to add fpu? Stretch the pipeline?
<strong>"Don't forget that the rumored 7470 is supposed to have a rumored 12 pipeline stages, which would mean that it could scale to at least 1.4GHz. I'm guessing it could reach 2GHz. "
Some fella from Macnn forums.
So...does the 7470 have a 12 stage pipeline? Surely not. The current chip has 7 stages? Surely 10 would be more realistic? .13 gives opportunities for design revisits? ie a new process...chance to add fpu? Stretch the pipeline?
Programmer?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Could they stretch the pipeline to 12? Yes -- the POWER4 stretches it farther than that. To modify a G4 to that extent doesn't make as much sense as designing a new core that works that way. The question of how far you could stretch the G4's core pipelines is something only the G4 engineers could answer. The same goes for how fast such a machine would be. There are too many unknowns and variables to be able to predict. It would certainly be able to run at a higher clock rate, but that guy is just pulling the 2GHz number out of his arse. Even if it did run at 2GHz, it would most certainly not be twice as fast as a 1GHz 7455... probably no faster than a 1.4 GHz 7455 would be my guess.
The move to 0.13 could be done with no higih level design changes at all, and that would be the fastest, cheapest way to get it there. It would also have the least benefits. Alternately, various relatively simple enhancements could be made -- double L2 to 512K, increase L3 cache controller capability, increase various internal buffers. Somewhat harder would be to add execution units (more FPU, IPU, VPU). Somewhere in this level of difficulty would be adding an on-chip memory controller and replacing the MPX bus with something newer (or just upping it to 166 MHz). Unfortunately for us rumour mongers, we don't know how much effort Moto/Apple/IBM have put into the next G4, or when it will show up.
Actually tell me about YOUR PC. not some BS conceptual specs that can never exist without hidden strings.
On my own integrity, I was very informed with my own PC, and I have also had hands in ~12 in the past 2 years.
I was there in research, I was there in the constuction(in self build models), I was there in trouble shooting. And I know myself some of the goods and bads of owning them.
The world is real not idealistic. Everything has drawbacks.
[edit]
IF you're going to use pricewatch.com. While useful, at least half the prices are pure BS. There are so many hoops to go through, you'll probably loose some weight.
IF you're using self build. remember SHIPPING. just because you're saving $5 is pointless if you're paying 7 for S&H.
Also a useful tibit open to anyone is:
buy your RAM seperately! Unless you get lucky. They use piority secured mail because of fragileness. The expensiveness if you increase either size or weight is killer.
~Kuku
Well I should end my rant, and let this thread die.
Comments
<strong>for a substantial part the discussion regarding the powermac's speed is about image and marketing. If you pay topdollar for a mercedes s500, you want it to have a topspeed of at least 155 mph (in europe that is). you will probably not drive so fast because of the prevailing speedlimits, but if its topspeed is only 100 mph you do not want to have it, even if its roadholding is superior. so whether or not you need the high topspeed, if you have to pay for you want to have it. now the owner of a mercedes 200 diesel: still a very good car, but with a very low topspeed and excellent roadholding. for the mercedes 200 owner it is very important that the make's topmodel is very fast, part of the value of the diesel is derived from the image of its topmodel.from this perspective it is imperative for apple that it has a topnotch topmodel powermac that is at least as fast or faster as the competition, even when only few users need it.
that said and being a mercedes s500 driver myself, i do not use my apple for sophisticated tasks but i get very sick when my nephew surfes the internet way faster than me on a brandless PC. i want instant rendering of webpages or whatever you call it (with a broadband connection) and have no use for an apple that has to think (different) for 10 seconds more than my nephews PC.
pim</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with the above statement, and would like to add that anyone out there buying a new computer knows you would like it to be competitive today, and tomorow.
Resale is a selling factor. If Apple does not start skiping over some MHz milestones it's going to be quite hard to sell a Mac in a 2 to 3 GHz+ performance gap vs. the PC side.
The only thing Apple has going for it right now is OS 10. The second you start to believe that Microslosh isn't trying to combat this problem with a semi sutable answer on their OS in house you've already lost the battle.
All the headlines need to read is that M$ has a usable product, and the ball will be back in their court. The user base is already established for M$, and the switch campaign only works when your looking good, and that is what OS 10 is doing, but the Macintosh itself is not.
That is the problem that needs to be addressed.
YAR you seem to be placing blame on us, rather than knowing what some of the real problems really are.
As I said I think Apple needs to start jumping over some MHz gaps.
I've heard in the past from people here that Apple wont do that because they will lose sales from those skiped over MHz machines that they dont sell. But I can tell you as fact that they have lost at least one sale this year because they can't put the "Power" back into the PowerMac. And that's why I wait.
If there is a GHz gap I'm not buying, and I'm going to have to start looking for a suitable Unix/LInux alternative.
But I'd rather have my PowerMac back on top.
(Perhaps I should ask this question elsewhere but bear with me, pim_fortuyn's post jogged my memory)
I am limping along until the next tower with an iBook combo 500 ($800 at CC.) However may I suggest a PowerBook Lemon Bon Bon? Portables are fun aren't they? :cool:
Oh yeah, besides, all you people who say we don't need power: aren't you the same people who say we should get OS X? Ever seen it on an old iBook?
[quote] "To maximize data bandwidth and reduce memory latency, Motorola Inc. said it will likely integrate a DRAM controller directly onto a future high-end PowerPC processor ... By doing so, the processor could bypass an external bus and have a direct link to the DRAM. ... "It makes a lot more sense to add high-speed memory controllers on processors," ... "Anytime you have a bus, you have to arbitrate for the bus. Rather than let it go hungry, you could feed the processor as fast as it can be fed." <hr></blockquote>
Anyone know if it'll be talked about July 22nd?
<strong>pim_fortuyn, good post. And it reminds me of question. I read often that Internet pages load so much faster on PCs. But, is that Motorola's fault of Apple's? In other words, is that simply a processor problem or is it more complicated? I mean a slower-clocked processor would not seem to account for magnitude of the delays loading pages. Finally, will OSX.2 help with this?
(Perhaps I should ask this question elsewhere but bear with me, pim_fortuyn's post jogged my memory)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmm. In what browser? I would think that would have more to do with it than anything else.
To give an example....explorer on 9 was slow as dirt, so I changed to Opera, which was noticeably faster. Now that I'm on X, explorer and opera are slow as dirt (the new explorer has corrected some of this), so I use chimera....it may be beta, but it's the fastest thing out there.
BTW, chimera's creator was just hired on at Apple, which hopefully means we'll see an Apple branded browser (it already looks like Mail) shortly.
Regarding speed of different browsers, I just saw an article in the recent Mac World comparing brower speed in OS9 and OSX. Its useful. But, did not compare between Mac and PC.
I also found a site--Broadband Optimizer--that offers a program that promise to speed downloads.
I dont have broadband yet so I can't vouch for it.
And maybe OSX.2 will be better in any case.
<a href="http://www.enigmarelle.com/sw/BroadbandOptimizer/"; target="_blank">Broadband Optimizer</a>
<strong>Pim and Taboo,
Regarding speed of different browsers, I just saw an article in the recent Mac World comparing brower speed in OS9 and OSX. Its useful. But, did not compare between Mac and PC.
I also found a site--Broadband Optimizer--that offers a program that promise to speed downloads.
I dont have broadband yet so I can't vouch for it.
And maybe OSX.2 will be better in any case.
<a href="http://www.enigmarelle.com/sw/BroadbandOptimizer/"; target="_blank">Broadband Optimizer</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep. Been using BO for about six months on all my X machines. It actually made quite a difference, as it causes the machine to take network data in 2meg chunks. It even made a difference on just the speed between machines. Chimera still beats the pants off explorer tho'....
The 'current' hardware rants from me...I'm trying real hard at the mo'...therapy...and the pending August release have me biting my tongue
The iBook is not mine. It's my wife's. If I ask nicely, I get to use it...
It's okay for Photoshop even on 300dpi work(well, better than my old Apple clone was before I sold it at Christmas...) Still, the 384megs of ram helps. As opposed to the old limit of 160 megs (that's all the old 'clone' could take...)
Still...
'Yet another'. There isn't alot new in terms of what people say on these boards. By myself, you or anybody else. You spend your time hoovering up after JD has trashed Apple (which is fun to read...I love Apple...but they have their faults...cruelly exposed by JD and Matsu...)
We're due for a 'power'Mac upgrade this August. I hope it makes 'whinging' mute. I think it's a close call between 'catch up' and Apple really surprising us? Something they haven't done too much of late. At least not where the pro' line is concerned.
I have an Athlon. I got it because it was 'required'. It opened my eyes to 'Workstation' level performance. Something the G4 prices itself as but doesn't have.
JD, I like your brutal style. Your heart's in the right place. At first, when you started on these boards, I wasn't sure if you be troll or what. But it was sure fun to read! These days? It's still fun to read!! You make your point. I think these boards need a Matsu, a JD to keep the 'apologists' or the 'apathetics' from losing the plot. Being resigned to inferior performance...if Apple truly believed that? Eventually they'd sink. All style and no subtance? oS 'x' alone won't save them. They've got to compete in hardware too. At the moment they're out on cpu performance, ram, bus...overpriced at old kit.
Performance does matter.
What does Lemon use his computers for?
3D. Photoshop. etc. I can assure you...I've worked with dual 1 giggers on Photoshop...and they are okay. But they're no workstation material. The Athlon buries them perception wise. Performance in 3D? As benches on net show? Suspect.
'Yet Another'. Don't presume knowing what people or 'most' people on these boards use their computers for.
Me? Like said, '3D'.
Includes loads of textures. Lots of polygons. Faster rendering of previews...tweaking. It's boring, fun and challenging. The 'boring' bit comes from NOT having enough performance. 3D folks always need more. A 1.6XP Athlon with 1 gig of DDR ISN'T enough. I do scenes that bring it to its knees...and the Ati 8500 sucks it up and chokes... Why would I buy something twice the price for half or similar to the said Athlon performance?
IF Apple are positioning themselves as high end software...they better get 'high end' kit to go with it. The 'behind the times' G4 doesn't cut it. It's got to almost double its 3D rendering to draw level with a low end Xp Athlon. It's got to do something really special to overtake it.
Ati and Nvidia are doing their bit on the graphic card front.
Fine for moving the graphics around. BUT, the scenes STILL have to be rendered...and I'd like some real performance please. The G4 has been coming in dribs and drabs over the last several years. Bout time we had something to make a real difference to rendering workflow!
Can't afford it? What does that have to do with if I or somebody else wants a fast computer. Tech' marches on. Only Motorola and Apple have difficulty with this concept.
I could buy a Widescreen iMac and two dual 'power'Macs. Between them...they might equal a dual Athlon...
I'd love to have a 'power'Mac again. But for now...I use the Athlon and wait on Apple's move to the next gen'.
The iBook? When I lend it...I plug it into a 21 inch monitor. 'X' looks nice on it, by the way! The 21 inch monitor awaits a true 'power'Mac pretender to the throne.
I'll survive for now
Seeing as we're in future hardware lands...let's imagine that Apple's hardware actually matched the Apple software!!! Great thought, eh?
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>
I thought that all these recent benchmarks would shut up the whiners here who think that performance doesn't matter. Alas, looking under your post, I see that it's only ruffled their feathers.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
First, I don't think there is anyone that will argue that more power is needed for Macs. That said, let's put things in better perspective.
Reading through the digitalvideoediting.com's article, it seemed rather biased to me. In addition to the wording used, look at the graphs. They show these huge graphs making it look like there is a world of difference in performance, when one computer finishes in 1 second, and the other in 2 seconds. Big deal.
In terms of applications, DVE's Photoshop benchmarks are clearly contradicted by this article: <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/2002-07-19-steinberg_x.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/2002-07-19-steinberg_x.htm</a>;
When challenged over the validity of the initial results, Steinberg even used the standard PS_Bench. If PS_Bench backs up Steinberg's results, I'm inclined to believe him over the guy from DVE.
As for digital video editing, who is still using Premiere, and why? Any serious user on the PC side would be using Avid. On the Mac, you'd be using FCP or Avid. Adobe hasn't been doing squat for the Mac side of Premiere for some time. The upcoming 6.5 won't have DVD authoring, etc. as the PC side will apparently. Likewise, since you can count the number of Mac Premiere users on one hand, I doubt there's much optimization going on. There surely is no difference between single and dual processors as far as I can tell. This is clearly not the case with FCP.
[quote]Originally posted by UberInstaller:
<strong>
We are with you on some things- CPU speed, DDR, FSB, but come on... how much longer do we all have to endure your little proclamations of "I will not buy because" or "I will only buy when Apple..." Hate to break it to you- you are just one person, and I personally do not care when you, if ever, buy another Mac. Sometimes I catch myself wishing you would go ahead and buy that dual Athlon and get out of here, to save all of us your incessant bitching. You and JYD are becoming rather tiresome. Broken records, er, hard drives, clicking away with no new data.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
LOL! I couldn't have said it better! Really, I like to pop in on these forums every now and then. Though, it gets very tiresome weeding through these doom and gloom posts. Quite frankly, I could care less what it will take for either of you to buy a Mac or your next Mac, or why you think Apple is doomed if they don't have certain features this time, etc.
Steve
<strong>the difference between 4 seconds to run a filter and 3 is not compelling.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Obviously you don't charge by the hour (and this applies to high(ish)-end video as well).
"Likewise, since you can count the number of Mac Premiere users on one hand"
Got any HARD evidence...data...figures to back up that half cocked statement?! Care to back that up with a link?
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>Wehllll. If it aint 'Side-Show-Steve'.
"Likewise, since you can count the number of Mac Premiere users on one hand"
Got any HARD evidence...data...figures to back up that half cocked statement?! Care to back that up with a link?
Lemon Bon Bon</strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.premier-users.org/count/one_hand.html"; target="_blank">http://www.premier-users.org/count/one_hand.html</a>;
That's a new site, so it may not resolve for a while. Just keep checking back...
Some fella from Macnn forums.
So...does the 7470 have a 12 stage pipeline? Surely not. The current chip has 7 stages? Surely 10 would be more realistic? .13 gives opportunities for design revisits? ie a new process...chance to add fpu? Stretch the pipeline?
Programmer?
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>"Don't forget that the rumored 7470 is supposed to have a rumored 12 pipeline stages, which would mean that it could scale to at least 1.4GHz. I'm guessing it could reach 2GHz. "
Some fella from Macnn forums.
So...does the 7470 have a 12 stage pipeline? Surely not. The current chip has 7 stages? Surely 10 would be more realistic? .13 gives opportunities for design revisits? ie a new process...chance to add fpu? Stretch the pipeline?
Programmer?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Could they stretch the pipeline to 12? Yes -- the POWER4 stretches it farther than that. To modify a G4 to that extent doesn't make as much sense as designing a new core that works that way. The question of how far you could stretch the G4's core pipelines is something only the G4 engineers could answer. The same goes for how fast such a machine would be. There are too many unknowns and variables to be able to predict. It would certainly be able to run at a higher clock rate, but that guy is just pulling the 2GHz number out of his arse. Even if it did run at 2GHz, it would most certainly not be twice as fast as a 1GHz 7455... probably no faster than a 1.4 GHz 7455 would be my guess.
The move to 0.13 could be done with no higih level design changes at all, and that would be the fastest, cheapest way to get it there. It would also have the least benefits. Alternately, various relatively simple enhancements could be made -- double L2 to 512K, increase L3 cache controller capability, increase various internal buffers. Somewhat harder would be to add execution units (more FPU, IPU, VPU). Somewhere in this level of difficulty would be adding an on-chip memory controller and replacing the MPX bus with something newer (or just upping it to 166 MHz). Unfortunately for us rumour mongers, we don't know how much effort Moto/Apple/IBM have put into the next G4, or when it will show up.
Even more annoying is that they keep pointing to the "mhz" factor
LemonBB, I have a althon, and I know what it can do. So shut up. I don't need you to tell me what my PC is not capable of doing.
I don't put a fast" 80GB Ultra ATA drive" in there,
I don't have a "Super drive", and
I don't have a "NVIDIA GeForce4 MX dual" in there
I DO have 4 extra fans and a +$100 case to keep the heat down.
and I don't want to spend a good $1000+ to make it like your "not competitive 3k G4"
Don't do idiot math with $3k/mhz. There are other things in there too.
AND software we take for granted. *cough XP**cough*$250*
~Kuku
Awshaddawwwwwp. Who was talkin' ter you?!
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. I'd shop around if I wuz you.
[ 07-25-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
Actually tell me about YOUR PC. not some BS conceptual specs that can never exist without hidden strings.
On my own integrity, I was very informed with my own PC, and I have also had hands in ~12 in the past 2 years.
I was there in research, I was there in the constuction(in self build models), I was there in trouble shooting. And I know myself some of the goods and bads of owning them.
The world is real not idealistic. Everything has drawbacks.
[edit]
IF you're going to use pricewatch.com. While useful, at least half the prices are pure BS. There are so many hoops to go through, you'll probably loose some weight.
IF you're using self build. remember SHIPPING. just because you're saving $5 is pointless if you're paying 7 for S&H.
Also a useful tibit open to anyone is:
buy your RAM seperately! Unless you get lucky. They use piority secured mail because of fragileness. The expensiveness if you increase either size or weight is killer.
~Kuku
Well I should end my rant, and let this thread die.
[ 07-25-2002: Message edited by: Kuku ]</p>