The G5 RAM does have to be installed in pairs. It's kind of like RAID 0 for RAM: the processor has two banks of RAM, on two seperate busses, feeding data in one coherent stream, effectively doubling bandwidth. It's a brilliant idea.
Just for the record, my disdain for their comment was not that their answer was wrong, just that it was lame. The machine needs more memory so it can really be put through its paces. They should get off the butts and put in two more chips.
...HD, CD/DVD and Fan. Nothing else will make noises. Oh, the LCD backlight can hum.
Processors have utterly no moving parts.
I have both Macs above and it's the drive's actuator and arms kicking in as the heads seek data. The slight whine is the platters spinning and the motor that spins them.
Maybe highly overclocked processors make a hum, but not clicks.
I believe that you can get some strange HF interference from the CPU coupled into the audio DSPs which can be heard audibly. I know that I can "hear" the CPU interferring with my 900Mhz phone... Of course the CPU isn't putting out an audio signal, but it can generate harmonics that interfer with a DSP also running at near frequencies... that interferece can make its way into the output of the DSP which with phones, audio ampliers and wireless audio, can sound like the CPU is making noise, since it follows the CPU work load. CPU's do draw more current when they are seriously crunching numbers.
Saw my first G5 at the Emeryville Apple Store on Friday. It was a 1.6. They wouldn't open the case. There was a huge floor-to-ceiling graphic of the inside of the case - same photo we've all seen. The sales guy (who had a lot of metal in him in various places) said, pointing to the graphic, "It looks like that." They were worried about people stealing RAM chips, graphics card, etc.
It is just like everyone says. You can not tell how gorgeous this baby is from the photos. You have to see it. The sheen of the aluminum - like warm silver, brighter than expected. The solid, smooth feel of it. The incredible attention to details. Very very quiet. Impressive as hell.
Well I gotta admit... the case really is amazing looking. I finally saw one in person today and it's so much better than in pictures. I really didn't have time to play around with it much so I couldn't really comment on performance. But just looking at the case, it's great.
I might be wrong in identifying that it was the processor and not some other component, but they make this kind of low-frequency click. It's very apparent with the iBooks and G3 iMacs.
I hear that noise in my iBook. If it's not proc-related it's weird that the proc seems to affect it.<Speculate>Perhaps Moto has a special way of keeping it quiet (at least they can do something right)</Speculate>
The G5 RAM does have to be installed in pairs. It's kind of like RAID 0 for RAM: the processor has two banks of RAM, on two seperate busses, feeding data in one coherent stream, effectively doubling bandwidth. It's a brilliant idea.
Sounds like the first PowerMacs. Next thing you know, they'll have QIMMs (quadruple in-line memory modules) and the x200 effect (1/4 speed).
Just for the record, my disdain for their comment was not that their answer was wrong, just that it was lame. The machine needs more memory so it can really be put through its paces. They should get off the butts and put in two more chips.
It would probably be a mistake for them to do this, as if they did, people would try the machine, get a feel for how it runs, buy their own stock configuration, and then be angry that it didn't work as well as the one in the Apple Store.
I hear that noise in my iBook. If it's not proc-related it's weird that the proc seems to affect it.<Speculate>Perhaps Moto has a special way of keeping it quiet (at least they can do something right)</Speculate>
See above posts from others -- the noise comes from hard drive activity, not the processor, and you'll hear that sound on every single computer with a hard drive. OS X accesses the HD a lot because it relies heavily on virtual memory, so that's why the sound maybe more apparent. Here's another hint, though: when you open a folder, file or app from your hard drive, you hear clicks because the computer is reading the data from your drive. Similarly, when you save a file to your drive, you hear clicks because the computer is writing the data to the drive. Now if you have an OS 9 boot-capable machine, run it off a RAM disk and unmount your hard drive by dragging it to the trash. Then run an app from your RAM disk and you won't hear any clicking.
[back on topic] It's too bad that the 1.8 didn't seem to give good performance. But its 200 extra MHz CPU and 100 extra MHz FSB simply isn't going to give that much more performance over the 1.6. (These machine should be much faster than any PB, though, so I can't really explain that other than attributing it to RAM issues.) And anyone who thinks Panther is going to be magic speed tonic will be disappointed. I can say that without ever having used Panther betas. It's good to have realistic expectations. The thing is, as I've said in my thread, I think the DP 2GHz is the only G5 worth buying.
And anyone who thinks Panther is going to be magic speed tonic will be disappointed. It's good to have realistic expectations.
Actually, a number of people who have been running betas of Panther have been saying that it's "magic speed tonic" across the entire range of Mac systems, particularly G3s. Realistic expectations are great, but sometimes a little optimization here or there can work wonders...
Actually, a number of people who have been running betas of Panther have been saying that it's "magic speed tonic" across the entire range of Mac systems, particularly G3s.
Panther is fantastic. Fast. Not to mention they fixed the fix_prebinding bug. Yes, fast on G3 too. I'm positive Panther on a G5 is "the one" for me. And on a dual? I can well imagine it rocks. Can't stand the wait until it all ships...
) And anyone who thinks Panther is going to be magic speed tonic will be disappointed. I can say that without ever having used Panther betas.
Well, it's about twice as fast as Jagwyre, subjectively, and the XBench people are seeing enormous speedup in text drawing .Personally, I didn't see much of the reported speed increase from 10.1 to 10.2, but there is no doubt that 10.3 screams. Even 7B44 has quite a few bugs though.
Well, it's about twice as fast as Jagwyre, subjectively, and the XBench people are seeing enormous speedup in text drawing .Personally, I didn't see much of the reported speed increase from 10.1 to 10.2, but there is no doubt that 10.3 screams. Even 7B44 has quite a few bugs though.
Well duh, it's a beta? It's darn fast anyhow, and the speed increase from 10.2 is more dramatic than 10.1 to 10.2. It's really almost as fast as how I remembered OS 9 to be on my Pismo.
[back on topic] It's too bad that the 1.8 didn't seem to give good performance. But its 200 extra MHz CPU and 100 extra MHz FSB simply isn't going to give that much more performance over the 1.6. (These machine should be much faster than any PB, though, so I can't really explain that other than attributing it to RAM issues.)
The point was that Panther does in fact appear to be a speed tonic. The "RAM issue" (besides 256MB being subsistence level) is that Panther appears to be about 40% more efficient in memory tests; and about that much more efficient generally.
Played with one at the Apple Store in Soho. This was a 1.8 Ghz machine. Felt like any other G4 - Photoshop took 7 or 8 bounces. Hopefully Panther will solve all the speed issues. And if not, I'm buying a G4 - they're pretty cheap these days.
The point was that Panther does in fact appear to be a speed tonic. The "RAM issue" (besides 256MB being subsistence level) is that Panther appears to be about 40% more efficient in memory tests; and about that much more efficient generally.
Panther on a G5 should be very nice.
Yes, and no one on this board is understanding that fact! In fact, most people post withour even giving a passing look to what others have said. The last post, for example!
The point was that Panther does in fact appear to be a speed tonic. The "RAM issue" (besides 256MB being subsistence level) is that Panther appears to be about 40% more efficient in memory tests; and about that much more efficient generally.
Panther on a G5 should be very nice.
If you have that kind of expectation for Panther, then I gladly stand corrected. I'm just skeptical of such claims because they've been heard about all the other upgrades (sometimes deservedly, other times not).
The RAM issue to which I was referring was the fact that the stock G5s have an insufficient amount installed. The thing is, Jaguar on a G5 should still be that much faster than Jaguar on any PB, but people are claiming they don't feel that.
Comments
Originally posted by Placebo
The G5 RAM does have to be installed in pairs. It's kind of like RAID 0 for RAM: the processor has two banks of RAM, on two seperate busses, feeding data in one coherent stream, effectively doubling bandwidth. It's a brilliant idea.
Just for the record, my disdain for their comment was not that their answer was wrong, just that it was lame. The machine needs more memory so it can really be put through its paces. They should get off the butts and put in two more chips.
Originally posted by johnq
...HD, CD/DVD and Fan. Nothing else will make noises. Oh, the LCD backlight can hum.
Processors have utterly no moving parts.
I have both Macs above and it's the drive's actuator and arms kicking in as the heads seek data. The slight whine is the platters spinning and the motor that spins them.
Maybe highly overclocked processors make a hum, but not clicks.
I believe that you can get some strange HF interference from the CPU coupled into the audio DSPs which can be heard audibly. I know that I can "hear" the CPU interferring with my 900Mhz phone... Of course the CPU isn't putting out an audio signal, but it can generate harmonics that interfer with a DSP also running at near frequencies... that interferece can make its way into the output of the DSP which with phones, audio ampliers and wireless audio, can sound like the CPU is making noise, since it follows the CPU work load. CPU's do draw more current when they are seriously crunching numbers.
IQ78
It is just like everyone says. You can not tell how gorgeous this baby is from the photos. You have to see it. The sheen of the aluminum - like warm silver, brighter than expected. The solid, smooth feel of it. The incredible attention to details. Very very quiet. Impressive as hell.
That said, I'm still waiting for Rev 2.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Originally posted by LudwigVan
I wanted to PM somebody, but I inadvertently posted a topic entry. So sue me!
Originally posted by Placebo
I might be wrong in identifying that it was the processor and not some other component, but they make this kind of low-frequency click. It's very apparent with the iBooks and G3 iMacs.
I hear that noise in my iBook. If it's not proc-related it's weird that the proc seems to affect it.<Speculate>Perhaps Moto has a special way of keeping it quiet (at least they can do something right)
Originally posted by Placebo
The G5 RAM does have to be installed in pairs. It's kind of like RAID 0 for RAM: the processor has two banks of RAM, on two seperate busses, feeding data in one coherent stream, effectively doubling bandwidth. It's a brilliant idea.
Sounds like the first PowerMacs. Next thing you know, they'll have QIMMs (quadruple in-line memory modules) and the x200 effect (1/4 speed)
Originally posted by machem
Just for the record, my disdain for their comment was not that their answer was wrong, just that it was lame. The machine needs more memory so it can really be put through its paces. They should get off the butts and put in two more chips.
It would probably be a mistake for them to do this, as if they did, people would try the machine, get a feel for how it runs, buy their own stock configuration, and then be angry that it didn't work as well as the one in the Apple Store.
-- Mark
Originally posted by ryaxnb
I hear that noise in my iBook. If it's not proc-related it's weird that the proc seems to affect it.<Speculate>Perhaps Moto has a special way of keeping it quiet (at least they can do something right)
See above posts from others -- the noise comes from hard drive activity, not the processor, and you'll hear that sound on every single computer with a hard drive. OS X accesses the HD a lot because it relies heavily on virtual memory, so that's why the sound maybe more apparent. Here's another hint, though: when you open a folder, file or app from your hard drive, you hear clicks because the computer is reading the data from your drive. Similarly, when you save a file to your drive, you hear clicks because the computer is writing the data to the drive. Now if you have an OS 9 boot-capable machine, run it off a RAM disk and unmount your hard drive by dragging it to the trash. Then run an app from your RAM disk and you won't hear any clicking.
[back on topic] It's too bad that the 1.8 didn't seem to give good performance. But its 200 extra MHz CPU and 100 extra MHz FSB simply isn't going to give that much more performance over the 1.6. (These machine should be much faster than any PB, though, so I can't really explain that other than attributing it to RAM issues.) And anyone who thinks Panther is going to be magic speed tonic will be disappointed. I can say that without ever having used Panther betas. It's good to have realistic expectations. The thing is, as I've said in my thread, I think the DP 2GHz is the only G5 worth buying.
Originally posted by Big Mac
And anyone who thinks Panther is going to be magic speed tonic will be disappointed. It's good to have realistic expectations.
Actually, a number of people who have been running betas of Panther have been saying that it's "magic speed tonic" across the entire range of Mac systems, particularly G3s. Realistic expectations are great, but sometimes a little optimization here or there can work wonders...
-- Mark
Originally posted by mark_wilkins
Actually, a number of people who have been running betas of Panther have been saying that it's "magic speed tonic" across the entire range of Mac systems, particularly G3s.
Panther is fantastic. Fast. Not to mention they fixed the fix_prebinding bug. Yes, fast on G3 too. I'm positive Panther on a G5 is "the one" for me. And on a dual? I can well imagine it rocks. Can't stand the wait until it all ships...
Originally posted by Big Mac
) And anyone who thinks Panther is going to be magic speed tonic will be disappointed. I can say that without ever having used Panther betas.
Well, it's about twice as fast as Jagwyre, subjectively, and the XBench people are seeing enormous speedup in text drawing .Personally, I didn't see much of the reported speed increase from 10.1 to 10.2, but there is no doubt that 10.3 screams. Even 7B44 has quite a few bugs though.
Originally posted by lundy
Well, it's about twice as fast as Jagwyre, subjectively, and the XBench people are seeing enormous speedup in text drawing .Personally, I didn't see much of the reported speed increase from 10.1 to 10.2, but there is no doubt that 10.3 screams. Even 7B44 has quite a few bugs though.
Well duh, it's a beta? It's darn fast anyhow, and the speed increase from 10.2 is more dramatic than 10.1 to 10.2. It's really almost as fast as how I remembered OS 9 to be on my Pismo.
Originally posted by anand
The G5 should only ship with 10.3. Nothing else. If this required waiting until December -well that is what they should have done.
No way, we need people to 'beta-test' this revision so I can have a stable and problem-free rev 2 G5
Originally posted by Big Mac
[back on topic] It's too bad that the 1.8 didn't seem to give good performance. But its 200 extra MHz CPU and 100 extra MHz FSB simply isn't going to give that much more performance over the 1.6. (These machine should be much faster than any PB, though, so I can't really explain that other than attributing it to RAM issues.)
The point was that Panther does in fact appear to be a speed tonic. The "RAM issue" (besides 256MB being subsistence level) is that Panther appears to be about 40% more efficient in memory tests; and about that much more efficient generally.
Panther on a G5 should be very nice.
Originally posted by Amorph
The point was that Panther does in fact appear to be a speed tonic. The "RAM issue" (besides 256MB being subsistence level) is that Panther appears to be about 40% more efficient in memory tests; and about that much more efficient generally.
Panther on a G5 should be very nice.
Yes, and no one on this board is understanding that fact! In fact, most people post withour even giving a passing look to what others have said. The last post, for example!
Originally posted by Amorph
The point was that Panther does in fact appear to be a speed tonic. The "RAM issue" (besides 256MB being subsistence level) is that Panther appears to be about 40% more efficient in memory tests; and about that much more efficient generally.
Panther on a G5 should be very nice.
If you have that kind of expectation for Panther, then I gladly stand corrected. I'm just skeptical of such claims because they've been heard about all the other upgrades (sometimes deservedly, other times not).
The RAM issue to which I was referring was the fact that the stock G5s have an insufficient amount installed. The thing is, Jaguar on a G5 should still be that much faster than Jaguar on any PB, but people are claiming they don't feel that.