Whatever else happens, Apple will never ship DDR 400, because it is not a standard. JEDEC have stated that they will not standardise DDR 400, and instead will go directly to DDR II.
It is not unreasonable to hope that it will be DDR 333, it has been a standard for some time.
I will be very surprised if there is a new CPU, and the machine doesnt have the same crappy frontside bus issues that the XServe has.
However, with Quartz Extreme, it may in fact happen that the extra bandwidth to memory could be used by the video card using DME to apply textures.
I hope that all the machines go dual processor, and that the price at the low end comes down a bit to really make it a style/convenience choice between the iMac 17" and a low end Powermac. This wont happen because Apple are too afraid of having complex product lines where systems overlap. Instead expect to see low end PM be an 'easy step' couple of hundred dollars above the iMac.
I also think that they will push really hard on the bundled monitor front. I could actually go for that, low end PM costing 2300, DP 933, gf4 mx, bundled 17" monitor ( current low end, with 17", superdrive, and gf4 mx is 2500 with rebate ).
I think apple will release some kick but hardware come August. I just can't see them releasing Shake 2.5 for OSX and having it get smashed (performance-wise) by a Linux, IRIX and Windows machine. In fact, I think apple will release a quad processor G4 tower to the high-end market (for like $4500). This would cause high-end studios to purchase a new top of the line Mac and Shake 2.5 for about $9,500 instead of buying the software-only version for the other platforms for $9,900. And I bet it will smoke the other platforms... (It would still be out of my budget but it would probably make them more likely to put duals in the rest of the line, which is good.)
I think apple will release some kick but hardware come August. I just can't see them releasing Shake 2.5 for OSX and having it get smashed (performance-wise) by a Linux, IRIX and Windows machine. In fact, I think apple will release a quad processor G4 tower to the high-end market (for like $4500). This would cause high-end studios to purchase a new top of the line Mac and Shake 2.5 for about $9,500 instead of buying the software-only version for the other platforms for $9,900. And I bet it will smoke the other platforms... (It would still be out of my budget but it would probably make them more likely to put duals in the rest of the line, which is good.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
oops, just read in another thread that the current Kernal in OSX doesn't support Quads (Jag?... Maybe, maybe not... but not likely)
Making the quads useful as opposed to earlier falures Apple need support in the OS, support in the Application as well as having the hardware that does not hamper the performance.
I have not seen any signs that the 1GHZ CPU is bus limited but having 4 or more might be stretching things to far.
If apple would use 4 low power low price 500 MHz G4 and call it a 2GHz G4 it still would be a 500 Mhz CPU in the OS that most Macintosh users still use.
Looking on the PC CPU side and compare price and speed it seems like a very nice solution to instead of taking the fastest most expensive CPU getting say 80% of the clock speed for 50% of the price and then for the same price as a singe fastest CPU by getting two CPUs getting close to 160% the performance.
To make such a scenaro feasable for Apple they have to make everyting use SMP.
I have read that even the Finder is carbon instead of coca....
And to really make the Macintosh performance look good they have to make Doom 3 and such fly faster on the mac than on the PC!!!. With WinXP home edition not supporting multiple CPUs and OS X doing this it is a possibility, but with the Mhz gap, the x86 code and other stuff it is safe to say that WIntel has quite lead.
Boy now wouldn't that suck if this page was telling truth?? *Gasp* what if it Is true?!????
That would mean...Apple's done it again. underpowered and overpriced.
I used to say that Apple was good, that their Power Mac G4s were, in fact, powerful and could and did beat pcs at Least in carrying out processes that took advantage of Altivec.
If those tests are accurate, then Apple is truly sad.
Boy now wouldn't that suck if this page was telling truth?? *Gasp* what if it Is true?!????
That would mean...Apple's done it again. underpowered and overpriced.
I used to say that Apple was good, that their Power Mac G4s were, in fact, powerful and could and did beat pcs at Least in carrying out processes that took advantage of Altivec.
If those tests are accurate, then Apple is truly sad.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The tests are most likely accurate. I don't expect the current Macs to be faster than PC with the disadvantage of SDR memory and busses. However I dont share the gloom that some display. Hardware is much easier to update than software. Get the software right and the Hardware will come around.
Boy now wouldn't that suck if this page was telling truth?? *Gasp* what if it Is true?!????
That would mean...Apple's done it again. underpowered and overpriced.
I used to say that Apple was good, that their Power Mac G4s were, in fact, powerful and could and did beat pcs at Least in carrying out processes that took advantage of Altivec.
If those tests are accurate, then Apple is truly sad.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i do think apple should release a faster machine, at least in term of technology. this is not just for apple itself, but for its loyal users. technologies are out there, it is a shame that apple still avoids them...
and yes, i will wait till there is fair good power mac coming out. i have been waiting since last sept. and i could continue it.
The tests are most likely accurate. I don't expect the current Macs to be faster than PC with the disadvantage of SDR memory and busses. However I dont share the gloom that some display. Hardware is much easier to update than software. Get the software right and the Hardware will come around.</strong><hr></blockquote>
After Effects on Mac doesn't use both processors which DVE found out in another benchmark test where the Dual 1 GHz wasn't much faster than the Single 933 MHz.
After Effects on Mac doesn't use both processors which DVE found out in another benchmark test where the Dual 1 GHz wasn't much faster than the Single 933 MHz.</strong><hr></blockquote>
JLL nice sig
Strange I thought AE was Dual Proc capable. Adobe really needs to get with the program on DP Awareness..not just for Apple but AMD has some nice Dualie MB also.
In that case it's a generally biased benchmark; it doesn't note the ram type, it claims that the AE 5.5 used both processors on the mac, it often omits certain things as 'insignificant' or 'no difference at all', and although it isn't necessarily biased that they would use OS X.1.5, they don't mention anything about Jaguar's speed enhancements or any looks towards future comparisons.
thanks jonathan, i was just about to post when you closed that thread. this thread sucks by the way, thanks for the recomendation. im glad to see you stay on top of things around here, this my last post on this board.
Power Mac 7500/100 (desktop style): $2699 - no modem,500 meg HD, 16 meg. RAM, 3 full length PCI slots.
Power Mac 8500/120: $3999 (mini-tower) - no modem, S-Video in/out, 1 gig. HD, 16 meg. RAM, 3 full length PCI slots. 3 front drive bays.
Power Mac 9500/120: $4599 (tower) - no modem, 16 meg. RAM, 1 gig. HD, 6 PCI slots. 3 front drive bays.
32 meg. RAM $1149.
You can today get a dual 1 GHz G4 with 4 PCI, Gigabit ethernet, built in modem, up to 1.5 gig RAM, Superdrive for $3499 ($2999 w/display purchase promo). Plus you get really fast I/O with FireWire and USB. Industry standards so your devices work with macs and PeeCees (many times without d/l or installing drivers).
If you cant afford to outright purchase any new G4, you are either a teenager or have piss poor credit. There's a concept called financing. Its incredible, but you can actually buy things on "credit" where you make small payments over time.
Stop whining about prices! You "new" Mac people have no clue how cheap comparitively powerful Macs are to what Apple used to sell (or even many PeeCees, almost none have Gigabit ethernet BUILT IN - read a real DELL catalog, prices are strikingly similar when configured to match a default Mac).
Comments
Fast : 1.2GHz G4, 256K L2, 2MB L3, 256 DDR 333MHz, 60 GB, Superdrive, 1699$
Faster : 1.4 GHz, 512K L2, 4MB L3, 512 DDR 333MHz, 80 GB, Superdrive, new ATI/nVidia, 2499$
Fastest : 2*1.6 GHz, 512K L2, 4MB L3, 1GB DDR 333MHz, 2*80 GB, Superdrive, new ATI/nVidia, 3199$
Ultimate : 2*1.6 GHz, 512K L2, 4MB L3, 2GB DDR 333MHz, 2*120 GB, Superdrive, new ATI/nVidia 3999$
new MB, AGP8x, USB2, Firewire2, bluetooth, airport2
What I hope :
Fast : 1.5GHz G5, 512K L2, 4MB L3, 256 DDR 333MHz, 80 GB, Superdrive, 1999$
Faster : 2.0 GHz G5, 512K L2, 4MB L3, 512 DDR 333MHz, 2*80 GB, Superdrive, new ATI/nVidia, 2699$
Fastest : 2*2.5 GHz G5, 512K L2, 4MB L3, 1GB DDR 333MHz, 2*120 GB, Superdrive, new ATI/nVidia, 3999$
Ultimate : 4*2.5 GHz G5, 512K L2, 4MB L3, 4GB DDR 333MHz, 4*120 GB, Superdrive, new ATI/nVidia 9999$
Aw
[ 07-23-2002: Message edited by: Appleworm ]</p>
It is not unreasonable to hope that it will be DDR 333, it has been a standard for some time.
I will be very surprised if there is a new CPU, and the machine doesnt have the same crappy frontside bus issues that the XServe has.
However, with Quartz Extreme, it may in fact happen that the extra bandwidth to memory could be used by the video card using DME to apply textures.
I hope that all the machines go dual processor, and that the price at the low end comes down a bit to really make it a style/convenience choice between the iMac 17" and a low end Powermac. This wont happen because Apple are too afraid of having complex product lines where systems overlap. Instead expect to see low end PM be an 'easy step' couple of hundred dollars above the iMac.
I also think that they will push really hard on the bundled monitor front. I could actually go for that, low end PM costing 2300, DP 933, gf4 mx, bundled 17" monitor ( current low end, with 17", superdrive, and gf4 mx is 2500 with rebate ).
G-News
<strong>Unless we're either getting a revised G4 with a multiplier beyond 9x or a system bus beyond 133MHz, we're not getting anything past 1200MHz.
G-News</strong><hr></blockquote>
But the 745X series supports up to a 16X ratio.
Originally posted by me
I think apple will release some kick but hardware come August. I just can't see them releasing Shake 2.5 for OSX and having it get smashed (performance-wise) by a Linux, IRIX and Windows machine. In fact, I think apple will release a quad processor G4 tower to the high-end market (for like $4500). This would cause high-end studios to purchase a new top of the line Mac and Shake 2.5 for about $9,500 instead of buying the software-only version for the other platforms for $9,900. And I bet it will smoke the other platforms... (It would still be out of my budget but it would probably make them more likely to put duals in the rest of the line, which is good.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
oops, just read in another thread that the current Kernal in OSX doesn't support Quads (Jag?... Maybe, maybe not... but not likely)
Making the quads useful as opposed to earlier falures Apple need support in the OS, support in the Application as well as having the hardware that does not hamper the performance.
I have not seen any signs that the 1GHZ CPU is bus limited but having 4 or more might be stretching things to far.
If apple would use 4 low power low price 500 MHz G4 and call it a 2GHz G4 it still would be a 500 Mhz CPU in the OS that most Macintosh users still use.
Looking on the PC CPU side and compare price and speed it seems like a very nice solution to instead of taking the fastest most expensive CPU getting say 80% of the clock speed for 50% of the price and then for the same price as a singe fastest CPU by getting two CPUs getting close to 160% the performance.
To make such a scenaro feasable for Apple they have to make everyting use SMP.
I have read that even the Finder is carbon instead of coca....
And to really make the Macintosh performance look good they have to make Doom 3 and such fly faster on the mac than on the PC!!!. With WinXP home edition not supporting multiple CPUs and OS X doing this it is a possibility, but with the Mhz gap, the x86 code and other stuff it is safe to say that WIntel has quite lead.
Boy now wouldn't that suck if this page was telling truth?? *Gasp* what if it Is true?!????
That would mean...Apple's done it again. underpowered and overpriced.
I used to say that Apple was good, that their Power Mac G4s were, in fact, powerful and could and did beat pcs at Least in carrying out processes that took advantage of Altivec.
If those tests are accurate, then Apple is truly sad.
<strong><a href="http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm</a>;
Boy now wouldn't that suck if this page was telling truth?? *Gasp* what if it Is true?!????
That would mean...Apple's done it again. underpowered and overpriced.
I used to say that Apple was good, that their Power Mac G4s were, in fact, powerful and could and did beat pcs at Least in carrying out processes that took advantage of Altivec.
If those tests are accurate, then Apple is truly sad.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The tests are most likely accurate. I don't expect the current Macs to be faster than PC with the disadvantage of SDR memory and busses. However I dont share the gloom that some display. Hardware is much easier to update than software. Get the software right and the Hardware will come around.
I wonder just how much speed will be gained with ddram though...2.8ghz p4 in sept. Will the new G4s be able to catch up?
And if it's so easy to update hardware, why does Apple seem to have such a hard time doing it?
<strong><a href="http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm</a>;
Boy now wouldn't that suck if this page was telling truth?? *Gasp* what if it Is true?!????
That would mean...Apple's done it again. underpowered and overpriced.
I used to say that Apple was good, that their Power Mac G4s were, in fact, powerful and could and did beat pcs at Least in carrying out processes that took advantage of Altivec.
If those tests are accurate, then Apple is truly sad.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i do think apple should release a faster machine, at least in term of technology. this is not just for apple itself, but for its loyal users. technologies are out there, it is a shame that apple still avoids them...
and yes, i will wait till there is fair good power mac coming out. i have been waiting since last sept. and i could continue it.
<strong>
The tests are most likely accurate. I don't expect the current Macs to be faster than PC with the disadvantage of SDR memory and busses. However I dont share the gloom that some display. Hardware is much easier to update than software. Get the software right and the Hardware will come around.</strong><hr></blockquote>
After Effects on Mac doesn't use both processors which DVE found out in another benchmark test where the Dual 1 GHz wasn't much faster than the Single 933 MHz.
<strong>
After Effects on Mac doesn't use both processors which DVE found out in another benchmark test where the Dual 1 GHz wasn't much faster than the Single 933 MHz.</strong><hr></blockquote>
JLL nice sig
Strange I thought AE was Dual Proc capable. Adobe really needs to get with the program on DP Awareness..not just for Apple but AMD has some nice Dualie MB also.
Does that sound about correct?
all on 130nm
512k L2
2MB L3
166Mhz FSB
333Mhz BSB
ATA-100
8X AGP
Edit: Dual 1.32Ghz available late Sept.
[ 07-23-2002: Message edited by: PowerPC ]</p>
<strong>Shock Horror! A serious reply:
933,
166 fsb
All pure speculation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
check your math there bud
[ 07-23-2002: Message edited by: gumby5647 ]</p>
1x 1.00GHz DDRAM-266
2x 1.00GHz DDRAM-266
2x 1.33GHz DDRAM-266
What it should have been [incl. requisite kernel adjustments]:
1.5k$ 1x 1.00 GHz DDRAM-266
2.5k$ 2x 1.33 GHz DDRAM-333 w/on-cpu memory controller
3.9k$ 4x 1.46 GHz DDRAM-333 w/on-cpu memory controller
[ 07-24-2002: Message edited by: dumpster ]</p>
for all you people that like to predict CPU speeds here is a list of possible speeds.
133Mhz bus:
933Mhz (7)
1Ghz (7.5)
1.06Ghz (8)
1.13Ghz (8.5)
1.19Ghz (9)
1.26Ghz (9.5)
1.33Ghz (10)
1.39Ghz (10.5)
1.46Ghz (11)
1.52Ghz (11.5)
166Mhz Bus:
996Mhz (6)
1.07Ghz (6.5)
1.16Ghz (7)
1.24Ghz (7.5)
1.32Ghz (8)
1.41Ghz (8.5)
1.49Ghz (9)
1.57Ghz (9.5)
1.66Ghz (10)
1.74Ghz (10.5)
and so on and so forth.....
pure speculation follows:
a 7455 on 180nm with a 133Mhz bus would probably top out at 1.19Ghz. Or 1.16 with a 166Mhz bus.
The rumored 7470 on a 130nm with a 166Mhz bus would probably top out 1.41Ghz. (and i think that that would be pushing it)
Or. 1.39 with a 133Mhz bus.
or something to that effect
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[ 07-24-2002: Message edited by: PowerPC ]</p>
<strong>You guys are whimps.
I have an old MacMall catalog c. 1995.
Lets look at some of the prices:
Power Mac 7500/100 (desktop style): $2699 - no modem,500 meg HD, 16 meg. RAM, 3 full length PCI slots.
Power Mac 8500/120: $3999 (mini-tower) - no modem, S-Video in/out, 1 gig. HD, 16 meg. RAM, 3 full length PCI slots. 3 front drive bays.
Power Mac 9500/120: $4599 (tower) - no modem, 16 meg. RAM, 1 gig. HD, 6 PCI slots. 3 front drive bays.
32 meg. RAM $1149.
You can today get a dual 1 GHz G4 with 4 PCI, Gigabit ethernet, built in modem, up to 1.5 gig RAM, Superdrive for $3499 ($2999 w/display purchase promo). Plus you get really fast I/O with FireWire and USB. Industry standards so your devices work with macs and PeeCees (many times without d/l or installing drivers).
If you cant afford to outright purchase any new G4, you are either a teenager or have piss poor credit. There's a concept called financing. Its incredible, but you can actually buy things on "credit" where you make small payments over time.
Stop whining about prices! You "new" Mac people have no clue how cheap comparitively powerful Macs are to what Apple used to sell (or even many PeeCees, almost none have Gigabit ethernet BUILT IN - read a real DELL catalog, prices are strikingly similar when configured to match a default Mac).
Man.
[ 07-23-2002: Message edited by: Nitride ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gigabit ethernet is somewhat useless unless ur network can handle it.
umm u can build ur own pc for 1k and have one of the best comps out there for a pc but we'd rather be able to have a fast MAC for a good price
so u stop whining
and what the heck is ur point of pointing out old prices and configs??
Frankly all i want is a dual ghz for 1600 but i'll take a single ghz for 1600 with ddr ram and a fast fsb
[ 07-24-2002: Message edited by: O and A ]</p>