Let's put some of these prices in perspective before making blanket statements that are ridiculous upon further reflection.
Hey, lighten up Francis!
There's nothing wrong with wanting Apple to give us such great hardware at lower prices.
It's my opinion that the topic of this thread is spot on.
I also think that the $1000 price difference between the low end and the high end is a disappointment.
All I said was that I would have liked to have seen the G5 1.6 price to be a bit lower (it's the G5 we're talking about here, not the G4) - and that's a ridiculous statement?
These are often opinions that we post here.
Don't get so bunched up because someone has a different view.
I can tell you that a magazine of 72 pages CMYK ( 4GB of data : illustrator eps, tiff, pdf, eps, etc.) is painfully slow on my Dual 1.25... BUT it flies on the G5 1.6 ! I think it's due to the BIG memory bandwith.
To give you a better comparison it's very close from XPress 4 in Mac OS 9 !
I can tell you that a magazine of 72 pages CMYK ( 4GB of data : illustrator eps, tiff, pdf, eps, etc.) is painfully slow on my Dual 1.25... BUT it flies on the G5 1.6 ! I think it's due to the BIG memory bandwith.
To give you a better comparison it's very close from XPress 4 in Mac OS 9 !
Good point. There is more to a machine than its CPU speed. Bandwidth is important.
I think that if the 1.6 compares favorably to the 2.8 P4, then Apple is doing well. These machines have legs.
Bare Feats is pretty sloppy as a benchmarking site. Rigs with different amounts of RAM are tested, dubious tests are used, the analysis is often slanted toward an expected result, etc.
Mike Breeden of Accelerate Your Mac! is much more careful and methodical about comparing Apples to Apples, so to speak. He's a far more consistent and correct source for performance metrics (and performance issues, for that matter).
Comments
Originally posted by KidRed
Let's put some of these prices in perspective before making blanket statements that are ridiculous upon further reflection.
Hey, lighten up Francis!
There's nothing wrong with wanting Apple to give us such great hardware at lower prices.
It's my opinion that the topic of this thread is spot on.
I also think that the $1000 price difference between the low end and the high end is a disappointment.
All I said was that I would have liked to have seen the G5 1.6 price to be a bit lower (it's the G5 we're talking about here, not the G4) - and that's a ridiculous statement?
These are often opinions that we post here.
Don't get so bunched up because someone has a different view.
Big caveat though: Panther.
Here is some test in xBench 1.1. Take it for what is worth.
But like I said in another topic, InDesign scream with the G5 compare to my "old" Dual G4 1.25 !
Here as the Bench in Panther
G4 Dual 1250 Panther 7B53 - 1280 MB RAM - GeForce4 Ti 4600 - Stock HD
Score - 127,35
CPU Test - 79,32
Thread Test - 173,85
Memory Test - 159,79
Quartz Test - 164,35
OpenGL Test - 129 ,73
Interface Test - 183 ,72
Disk Test 89,99
G5 1600 Panther 7B53 - 1280 MB RAM - GeForce FX 5200 - Stock HD
Score - 153,74
CPU Test - 146,93
Thread Test - 102,09
Memory Test - 312,14
Quartz Test - 201,68
OpenGL Test - 175,35
Interface Test - 177,60
Disk Test - 105,99
Life is good and the Dual will blow away the competition !
PS: Do you know if I can put my GeForce Ti 4600 AGP 4X in the G5 ?
Originally posted by jeromba
W InDesign scream with the G5 compare to my "old" Dual G4 1.25 !
it will take the G10 to make InDesign scream...
Originally posted by othello
it will take the G10 to make InDesign scream...
I can tell you that a magazine of 72 pages CMYK ( 4GB of data : illustrator eps, tiff, pdf, eps, etc.) is painfully slow on my Dual 1.25... BUT it flies on the G5 1.6 ! I think it's due to the BIG memory bandwith.
To give you a better comparison it's very close from XPress 4 in Mac OS 9 !
Originally posted by jeromba
I can tell you that a magazine of 72 pages CMYK ( 4GB of data : illustrator eps, tiff, pdf, eps, etc.) is painfully slow on my Dual 1.25... BUT it flies on the G5 1.6 ! I think it's due to the BIG memory bandwith.
To give you a better comparison it's very close from XPress 4 in Mac OS 9 !
Good point. There is more to a machine than its CPU speed. Bandwidth is important.
I think that if the 1.6 compares favorably to the 2.8 P4, then Apple is doing well. These machines have legs.
Originally posted by JLL
Big caveat: Bare Feats
Something I am not aware of?
Originally posted by klinux
Something I am not aware of?
Bare Feats is pretty sloppy as a benchmarking site. Rigs with different amounts of RAM are tested, dubious tests are used, the analysis is often slanted toward an expected result, etc.
Mike Breeden of Accelerate Your Mac! is much more careful and methodical about comparing Apples to Apples, so to speak. He's a far more consistent and correct source for performance metrics (and performance issues, for that matter).