This is a bit misleading on a number of accounts. First, your dealling with a processor with an entirely differrent instruction set.
Second not all application are cache bound and one is likely to have several applications running on his PC. It is possible for an individual application not to benefit on a machine with larger cache but the overall system can gain a bit.
Third CACHE becomes more important as the ratio between memory speed and cpu speed increases. Running a processor at the same speed as another really does nothing to change these ratios.
Now given all of the above there are other ways to deal with the ratio between memory and the processor. Apparently there are a few more transistors in the 90 nm 970, it will be interesting to find out what they do.
Thanks
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by cuneglasus
Or more likely because it would not greatly increase the performance of the chip to increase the cache to 1mb.Take a look at these benchmarks.
One little thing to consider, cache does not increase bandwidth this is true. It can however make more of a given bandwidth available for other uses. In the older G4 and G3 processors increasing the cach can have a dramatic impact on perfromance as it leaves the bus available for other things. Not to mention of course the timing issues across a slow bus, which as you point out is a reduction in latency.
While I have been trumpeting an increase in cache size there are a number of things that could be improved with the 970 that would make better use of the cache it currently has. Wether things such as the no-oped cache instructions have been re-implemented is an open question at the moment. All I can say is that I'm eagerly awaiting the latest and greatest information.
thanks
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by mmicist
1) Memory access doesn't go across the Hypertransport bus, just the elastic bus.
2) The main purpose of cache is to reduce the latency of memory access rather than increase the bandwidth, and in this regard the G5s perform poorly compared to most modern PCs, and very poorly compared to Opteron machines with on-chip memory controllers. Most purely bandwidth dependent programmes have datasets that will never fit in cache.
I think you're getting ahead of yourself here. These 90nm chips are the first rolling off the lines at Fishkill. We just don't know enough about the (semi) new design. Maybe they kept the cache at 512k to keep initial costs down.
Well that is why I'm wondering :0 . You never know somebody might spill the beans. We will all know shortly so that isn't a big deal.
Costs could very well be an issue which leads one to suspect that this processor will have a short life span at the high end and be quickly implemented into the low end. While it may no be all it could be, in a $1200 computer it would be an excellent processor at 2.3GHz.
Not that Apple would eve deliver a computer that truely performs at that price level, but hey that is what competition is for.
Quote:
Notice how much the die shrank, lots of stuff could be put in there later, keeping the cost the same as before. But these new chips will be cheaper.
More and more I'm wondering just how long the 970 will be around. My supiscion is that it won't be in the high end long. Due to this I'm not of the opinion that a great deal more development effort will go into the 970. Instead we will see more effort put into the Power 5 derived technology.
Heres one for you, when you plug in an ethernet cable the system automaticaly determines what you are connected to, and adjusts the wiring to support it. I used it just yesterday to transfer files from my ibook to my mothers hp laptop. Just plug in a ethernet cable, no worrying about crossover cables, or hubs or anything.
It just works.
Apple makes polished products. All of the manufacturers you mention are just assemblers of someone elses products. They have very little polish, because polish costs money.
We all want more than what is available, but we have to be realistic about what can be offered. The parts cost of an emac may be $250, but the polish, the OS, everything costs more than that. The polish costs money.
Bonus Round:
I just had projector home with me over xmas, and having left my ibook video cable ( hmmm, dont like it ) at home I had to use my mothers hp to drive the projector. The projector is an 800x600 dlp, but for the life of me, I could not get that laptop to output 800x600 on its external signal. Im sure its a windows issue, but its also a polish issue. My iBook would have worked beautifully. Not to mention that when you use dvd player it disables the screensaver, much unlike the dvd software that came with the hp. Polish, polish, polish. Time and again my ibook just works the way I want it to. I didnt even bother having music on my pc till itunes was released, because I found all of the windows software to be so clumsy. Polish. Ill pay for it.
I Am sick of people on this post BITCHING about PRICE. GET A JOB DUDE!
How does addressing a legitimate concern for the Macintosh hardware line and its price point equate to not having a job? I?d love to know how you came to this conclusion.
Quote:
The professional reality is that if you want ot author a serious DVD you need to go to DLT ( digital linear tape ) as apple's superdrive does not support authoring media for dvd mass repro. iDVD is a consumer tool nothing more soemthing to show your friends ect.
Actually, I?m not a video professional. I?m simply a user who wishes to burn DVDs. Again, I?m not sure where you?ve come to your conclusions about my needs.
Quote:
Go buy studio dvd pro. Quite frankly $1800 is nothing to spend on a computer if your really using it for work. I wish mac's were that cheap in my part of the world... I shelled out $5000 for my TI book and still consider it my best investment.
Why would I buy $999 worth of product that I?m going to use for personal (amateur) home video?
Okay, so you paid a large sum of money and have been happy with your computer purchase. Good for you. I paid a large sum of money for my Macintosh(es), and I got good value out of them. But there is now a void in the product line that is preventing me from making more Apple purchases. How is this ?whining??
Quote:
As far as the G5 is concerned we should all be lucky that companies like apple exist to provide us with machines that are SCALEABLE THINK X-SERVE KIDDIES... lest we be stuck with more beige from wintel.
I?m curious about whether you?ve actually USED a wintel machine. I?d be interested in knowing which model and operating system version you?ve used, and when. I?m trying to zero-in on the cause of your vitriol and name-calling, and am finding it difficult to ascertain.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
The *only* reasonable counter argument is that external drives, for instance, cost a bit more than internal ones. Fair enough, they do. But you know what? I use my external drives for backups, and I like being able to remove them easily. Added security from electrical surges, etc, to boot. When a storm comes through, even though I have a UPS, I worry about the internal drives. My backups are safely off-line, off-grid. And, I can rotate two of them, keeping one at work and one at home. There are good solid reasons to *prefer* externals in many cases.
Absolutely, there are good reasons to prefer external drives in many cases. However, for many users, there are good reasons to prefer INTERNAL drives, as well. Trying to argue which is ?better? is an exercise in futility, IMHO.
Point is, some of Apple?s software WILL NOT WORK with external drives (iDVD).
Quote:
Originally posted by mmmpie
Macs have the best cup holders around. Heres one for you, when you plug in an ethernet cable the system automaticaly determines what you are connected to, and adjusts the wiring to support it. I used it just yesterday to transfer files from my ibook to my mothers hp laptop. Just plug in a ethernet cable, no worrying about crossover cables, or hubs or anything.
It just works.
Okay, so we?ve established that the Macintosh OS is quite robust and functional. You'll get no argument to the contrary from me.
Quote:
Apple makes polished products. All of the manufacturers you mention are just assemblers of someone elses products. They have very little polish, because polish costs money.
So, your assertion is that the extra manhours needed to program and test the Macintosh OS justifies the increased cost for hardware? Am I to believe that the Macintosh OS somehow has ?more? code than, say, Windows XP? If that is the case, does that account for the ?polish?? (Honestly asking, here. Don?t know what you?re trying to say.)
Quote:
We all want more than what is available, but we have to be realistic about what can be offered. The parts cost of an emac may be $250, but the polish, the OS, everything costs more than that. The polish costs money.
Actually, I was under the impression that I wanted the same as what was available, not more.
I'm amiss as to why anyone would spend, say, $1000 on a machine (eMac w/Superdrive) that has an outdated video card that BARELY supports Quartz Extreme TODAY, and will most certainly be stymied on video game performance tomorrow. Now, if you don't play video games on your computer, that's fine. But why would you DELIBERATELY CAUSE YOURSELF A REPURCHASE within the next year because the manufacturer of the machine:
a) Does not allow for video upgrades
b) Includes an obselete, fixed, video processor (Radeon 7500)
You wouldn't, of course. Because you're a SMART, REASONABLE consumer. You look for value that will meet your needs NOW and IN THE FUTURE, and then you spend your money.
The iBook is a great computer, though? Why is it so bad to have only two good consumer computers, when they're both good? Is it the "laptops are not for desktops" motif? I don't get that.
What I said was that Apple makes ONE decent consumer computer...the iBook. The price/performance of the iMac isn't competitive. The eMac isn't intended for the consumer market, it's primarily for educational institutions that want a bare-bones AIO.
As for "laptops are not for desktops", I'd never make such a strong statement. But I would say that for at any given price level a dedicated desktop is cheaper, faster and easier to use than any laptop because of its screen size and keyboard.
Can't you connect your upgraded video card through one of the USB 1.1 ports?
I'm gonna presume that you're addressing one of my issues, though I didn't see any of my quotes in your post.
To answer your question, I believe there are only TWO ways to upgrade a video card in a computer. Both ways are ONLY accessable via the motherboard of a computer.
1) PCI slot (older, slower)
2) AGP slot (newer, faster)
I do not know of any video card upgrade solution pertaining to the USB ports on any computer.
To bring this back to the thread title... The G5 xServe tells me Apple is going high-end. The 970 is a strong chip and one of Apple's strengths. Like any good company Apple will run with its strength. I expect a whole lot of kick-ass $2000+ G5 machines from Apple.
What makes me sad, is that I also expect a whole lot of nothing in the sub-$1500 desktop segment. I want Apple to prove me wrong...but their AIO vision for consumer computers doesn't appeal to me one bit.
I'm gonna presume that you're addressing one of my issues, though I didn't see any of my quotes in your post.
To answer your question, I believe there are only TWO ways to upgrade a video card in a computer. Both ways are ONLY accessable via the motherboard of a computer.
1) PCI slot (older, slower)
2) AGP slot (newer, faster)
I do not know of any video card upgrade solution pertaining to the USB ports on any computer.
Regards,
-Antithesis
Yes...I was addressing one of your posts. I was giving my own sarcastic view of the eMac's upgradability while pointing out its antiquated use of USB 1.1.
Yes...I was addressing one of your posts. I was giving my own sarcastic view of the eMac's upgradability while pointing out its antiquated use of USB 1.1.
D'OH!
Sorry about that, Ompus. I actually laughed when I read your response in its proper context.
-Antithesis (who, sometimes, NEEDS that smiley face)
One little thing to consider, cache does not increase bandwidth this is true. It can however make more of a given bandwidth available for other uses. In the older G4 and G3 processors increasing the cach can have a dramatic impact on perfromance as it leaves the bus available for other things. Not to mention of course the timing issues across a slow bus, which as you point out is a reduction in latency.
While I have been trumpeting an increase in cache size there are a number of things that could be improved with the 970 that would make better use of the cache it currently has. Wether things such as the no-oped cache instructions have been re-implemented is an open question at the moment. All I can say is that I'm eagerly awaiting the latest and greatest information.
Cache helped the G3 and G4's because their bandwidth was horrible. Most large problems (e.g. really big heavy processing jobs) require bandwidth because there is no way to fit half a gig of data into the cache.
Cache matters much less for a machine with better bandwidth.
Cache helped the G3 and G4's because their bandwidth was horrible. Most large problems (e.g. really big heavy processing jobs) require bandwidth because there is no way to fit half a gig of data into the cache.
Cache matters much less for a machine with better bandwidth.
That's right.
However cache have better latency than the mobo ram.
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
However cache have better latency than the mobo ram.
True, but any real problem will be many many many times larger than the cache. Cache is useful, but not as useful as some people think, especially for heavy number crunching problems. I'd take a 15% increase in bandwidth over a 100% increase in cache size any day.
Well I have to take acception to the last part of your message first. The demand for cases in the PC market place is drivne by the consumer, possibly much more than you realize. The reality is that there are more form factors available in the PC market place than is seen in the Apple world. Traditional towers can be found in numerous shapes and size to fit the users need. If a tower won't fit the bill small for factor machines are all the rage now, especially for people looking for portable power.
I have nothing agianst Apple doing better. As you have pointed out it is possible to do so. The question is why haven't they done so. Specifically for the pro line where flexibility is important and does not add that much in the way of additional cost.
Mind you I'm not complaining about the iMac line which serves its market well, even if expansion and up grades are an issue. But when one looks at the size of a G5 tower and the utter lack of expandability in that machine it does cause wonderment. Now many have pointed out the availability of external devices, but these don't really serve the same purpose as an internal device. In any event the whole purpose of a tower type enclosure is to provide internal expansion capability in the form of internal devices. A tower without these capabilities might as well be sold as an all in one.
Suppose that you wanted to resell a G5 into a specific market and lets say that market can make use of an extra CD/DVD reader writer device and an all in one card reader. Shipping just one item is the ideal way to handle this from the business stand point. Looking at it from the other direction if your purchasing for a large company, it is much easier to keep track of one item as opposed to three. While extremely minor the security issue is real also, internally mounted dvices do slow people with sticky fingers down if only a little amount.
It is because of the fact that the technology is constantly changing that makes upgradeable machines so important. Those fliers as often have state of the art harddrives in them, not at huge discounts, but being marketed to people who precieve a need for them. Personally I thought that I had my need of harddisk space under control a few years ago, with space for my personal stuff, a few linux images and a bunch of applicaitons. Then I did something that almost everybody is doing, I bought a digital camera.
Now that does not sound like much, what is one little cameras impact on a PC. Well come to find out one can take a vacation and shoot a giga byte of data in no time at all. Even after the deletion of those pics that should neve see the light of day, one still has a huge amount of data. So with this one little purchase I've placed my haddrive on to the have to upgrade list along with my CDROM writer. Even at todays prices it still makes sense to go out and puchase a DVD writer as opposed to a new machine with a DVD writer in it. Now as to the question of internal or external.
Well if the space is available, the rational place for the harddrive is internal to the PC. Hey I've even given consideration to building an external raid box to serve as a NAS device, but such flights of fancy are always hit squarely with the reality that I work for a living. An external DVD Writer is only rational if you have other machines to hook it up to, and can justify the extra expsense and clutter. Looking at my desk now, clutter is an issue why add to it?
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
If things are selling well, you don't have to run specials on them. All the things you mention have short effective shelf lives because the tech is constantly getting better, which is where the incentives come in to issue those fliers.
Also, I think there's more expansion on the PC side just because people believe there's more need for it, or skimp on features at purchase because the geek they've dragged along to help them with all those confusing things has told them they can always add something later.
It's all needless trouble and complexity most of the time. In fact, were it not for Apple, it would be much worse. If there was any great consumer demand for internal expansion, wouldn't someone have made it easier? But who made it easier? Before Apple's cases for the x600 towers and the G3, taking a PC case apart involved lots of screws and sharp edges and fiddling. Even now it's often needlessly difficult to extricate something or put it in. So, again, zero market research was done. The PC tower is not a product of demand. It's a product of inertia and manufacturer convenience. If Apple intends to sell machines based on what consumers want to use, they have to do better than that. And I believe that they are.
Comments
Originally posted by bka77
overkill!
sorry kb.I will correct.....
Second not all application are cache bound and one is likely to have several applications running on his PC. It is possible for an individual application not to benefit on a machine with larger cache but the overall system can gain a bit.
Third CACHE becomes more important as the ratio between memory speed and cpu speed increases. Running a processor at the same speed as another really does nothing to change these ratios.
Now given all of the above there are other ways to deal with the ratio between memory and the processor. Apparently there are a few more transistors in the 90 nm 970, it will be interesting to find out what they do.
Thanks
Dave
Originally posted by cuneglasus
Or more likely because it would not greatly increase the performance of the chip to increase the cache to 1mb.Take a look at these benchmarks.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1941
Note the minimal to nonexistant difference in performance between the athelon64 3000+ and the athelon64 3200+.
Both run at 2.0 ghrz-the only difference is that the 3000+ has 512kb of cache and the 3200+ has 1mb.
And notice what the 128 bit memory controler does.Shocking.
While I have been trumpeting an increase in cache size there are a number of things that could be improved with the 970 that would make better use of the cache it currently has. Wether things such as the no-oped cache instructions have been re-implemented is an open question at the moment. All I can say is that I'm eagerly awaiting the latest and greatest information.
thanks
Dave
Originally posted by mmicist
1) Memory access doesn't go across the Hypertransport bus, just the elastic bus.
2) The main purpose of cache is to reduce the latency of memory access rather than increase the bandwidth, and in this regard the G5s perform poorly compared to most modern PCs, and very poorly compared to Opteron machines with on-chip memory controllers. Most purely bandwidth dependent programmes have datasets that will never fit in cache.
michael
Originally posted by discstickers
I think you're getting ahead of yourself here. These 90nm chips are the first rolling off the lines at Fishkill. We just don't know enough about the (semi) new design. Maybe they kept the cache at 512k to keep initial costs down.
Well that is why I'm wondering
Costs could very well be an issue which leads one to suspect that this processor will have a short life span at the high end and be quickly implemented into the low end. While it may no be all it could be, in a $1200 computer it would be an excellent processor at 2.3GHz.
Not that Apple would eve deliver a computer that truely performs at that price level, but hey that is what competition is for.
Quote:
Notice how much the die shrank, lots of stuff could be put in there later, keeping the cost the same as before. But these new chips will be cheaper.
More and more I'm wondering just how long the 970 will be around. My supiscion is that it won't be in the high end long. Due to this I'm not of the opinion that a great deal more development effort will go into the 970. Instead we will see more effort put into the Power 5 derived technology.
Dave
Quote:
Heres one for you, when you plug in an ethernet cable the system automaticaly determines what you are connected to, and adjusts the wiring to support it. I used it just yesterday to transfer files from my ibook to my mothers hp laptop. Just plug in a ethernet cable, no worrying about crossover cables, or hubs or anything.
It just works.
Apple makes polished products. All of the manufacturers you mention are just assemblers of someone elses products. They have very little polish, because polish costs money.
We all want more than what is available, but we have to be realistic about what can be offered. The parts cost of an emac may be $250, but the polish, the OS, everything costs more than that. The polish costs money.
Bonus Round:
I just had projector home with me over xmas, and having left my ibook video cable ( hmmm, dont like it ) at home I had to use my mothers hp to drive the projector. The projector is an 800x600 dlp, but for the life of me, I could not get that laptop to output 800x600 on its external signal. Im sure its a windows issue, but its also a polish issue. My iBook would have worked beautifully. Not to mention that when you use dvd player it disables the screensaver, much unlike the dvd software that came with the hp. Polish, polish, polish. Time and again my ibook just works the way I want it to. I didnt even bother having music on my pc till itunes was released, because I found all of the windows software to be so clumsy. Polish. Ill pay for it.
Originally posted by mmmpie
Macs have the best cup holders around.
Heres one for you, when you plug in an ethernet cable*snip*.
Exactly what I was saying.
Originally posted by Celco
I Am sick of people on this post BITCHING about PRICE. GET A JOB DUDE!
How does addressing a legitimate concern for the Macintosh hardware line and its price point equate to not having a job? I?d love to know how you came to this conclusion.
The professional reality is that if you want ot author a serious DVD you need to go to DLT ( digital linear tape ) as apple's superdrive does not support authoring media for dvd mass repro. iDVD is a consumer tool nothing more soemthing to show your friends ect.
Actually, I?m not a video professional. I?m simply a user who wishes to burn DVDs. Again, I?m not sure where you?ve come to your conclusions about my needs.
Go buy studio dvd pro. Quite frankly $1800 is nothing to spend on a computer if your really using it for work. I wish mac's were that cheap in my part of the world... I shelled out $5000 for my TI book and still consider it my best investment.
Why would I buy $999 worth of product that I?m going to use for personal (amateur) home video?
Okay, so you paid a large sum of money and have been happy with your computer purchase. Good for you. I paid a large sum of money for my Macintosh(es), and I got good value out of them. But there is now a void in the product line that is preventing me from making more Apple purchases. How is this ?whining??
As far as the G5 is concerned we should all be lucky that companies like apple exist to provide us with machines that are SCALEABLE THINK X-SERVE KIDDIES... lest we be stuck with more beige from wintel.
I?m curious about whether you?ve actually USED a wintel machine. I?d be interested in knowing which model and operating system version you?ve used, and when. I?m trying to zero-in on the cause of your vitriol and name-calling, and am finding it difficult to ascertain.
Originally posted by Kickaha
The *only* reasonable counter argument is that external drives, for instance, cost a bit more than internal ones. Fair enough, they do. But you know what? I use my external drives for backups, and I like being able to remove them easily. Added security from electrical surges, etc, to boot. When a storm comes through, even though I have a UPS, I worry about the internal drives. My backups are safely off-line, off-grid. And, I can rotate two of them, keeping one at work and one at home. There are good solid reasons to *prefer* externals in many cases.
Absolutely, there are good reasons to prefer external drives in many cases. However, for many users, there are good reasons to prefer INTERNAL drives, as well. Trying to argue which is ?better? is an exercise in futility, IMHO.
Point is, some of Apple?s software WILL NOT WORK with external drives (iDVD).
Originally posted by mmmpie
Macs have the best cup holders around. Heres one for you, when you plug in an ethernet cable the system automaticaly determines what you are connected to, and adjusts the wiring to support it. I used it just yesterday to transfer files from my ibook to my mothers hp laptop. Just plug in a ethernet cable, no worrying about crossover cables, or hubs or anything.
It just works.
Okay, so we?ve established that the Macintosh OS is quite robust and functional. You'll get no argument to the contrary from me.
Apple makes polished products. All of the manufacturers you mention are just assemblers of someone elses products. They have very little polish, because polish costs money.
So, your assertion is that the extra manhours needed to program and test the Macintosh OS justifies the increased cost for hardware? Am I to believe that the Macintosh OS somehow has ?more? code than, say, Windows XP? If that is the case, does that account for the ?polish?? (Honestly asking, here. Don?t know what you?re trying to say.)
We all want more than what is available, but we have to be realistic about what can be offered. The parts cost of an emac may be $250, but the polish, the OS, everything costs more than that. The polish costs money.
Actually, I was under the impression that I wanted the same as what was available, not more.
I'm amiss as to why anyone would spend, say, $1000 on a machine (eMac w/Superdrive) that has an outdated video card that BARELY supports Quartz Extreme TODAY, and will most certainly be stymied on video game performance tomorrow. Now, if you don't play video games on your computer, that's fine. But why would you DELIBERATELY CAUSE YOURSELF A REPURCHASE within the next year because the manufacturer of the machine:
a) Does not allow for video upgrades
b) Includes an obselete, fixed, video processor (Radeon 7500)
You wouldn't, of course. Because you're a SMART, REASONABLE consumer. You look for value that will meet your needs NOW and IN THE FUTURE, and then you spend your money.
Regards,
-Antithesis
Originally posted by ryaxnb
The iBook is a great computer, though? Why is it so bad to have only two good consumer computers, when they're both good? Is it the "laptops are not for desktops" motif? I don't get that.
What I said was that Apple makes ONE decent consumer computer...the iBook. The price/performance of the iMac isn't competitive. The eMac isn't intended for the consumer market, it's primarily for educational institutions that want a bare-bones AIO.
As for "laptops are not for desktops", I'd never make such a strong statement. But I would say that for at any given price level a dedicated desktop is cheaper, faster and easier to use than any laptop because of its screen size and keyboard.
Originally posted by Ompus
The eMac isn't intended for the consumer market, it's primarily for educational institutions that want a bare-bones AIO.
my emac is hardly bare-bones. its seriously faster than some 1Ghz pm's i've seen (my emac is 800Mhz). nevertheless, i'll have a new pm soon
Originally posted by Ompus
Can't you connect your upgraded video card through one of the USB 1.1 ports?
I'm gonna presume that you're addressing one of my issues, though I didn't see any of my quotes in your post.
To answer your question, I believe there are only TWO ways to upgrade a video card in a computer. Both ways are ONLY accessable via the motherboard of a computer.
1) PCI slot (older, slower)
2) AGP slot (newer, faster)
I do not know of any video card upgrade solution pertaining to the USB ports on any computer.
Regards,
-Antithesis
What makes me sad, is that I also expect a whole lot of nothing in the sub-$1500 desktop segment. I want Apple to prove me wrong...but their AIO vision for consumer computers doesn't appeal to me one bit.
Originally posted by Antithesis
I'm gonna presume that you're addressing one of my issues, though I didn't see any of my quotes in your post.
To answer your question, I believe there are only TWO ways to upgrade a video card in a computer. Both ways are ONLY accessable via the motherboard of a computer.
1) PCI slot (older, slower)
2) AGP slot (newer, faster)
I do not know of any video card upgrade solution pertaining to the USB ports on any computer.
Regards,
-Antithesis
Yes...I was addressing one of your posts. I was giving my own sarcastic view of the eMac's upgradability while pointing out its antiquated use of USB 1.1.
Originally posted by Ompus
Yes...I was addressing one of your posts. I was giving my own sarcastic view of the eMac's upgradability while pointing out its antiquated use of USB 1.1.
D'OH!
Sorry about that, Ompus. I actually laughed when I read your response in its proper context.
-Antithesis (who, sometimes, NEEDS that smiley face)
Originally posted by wizard69
One little thing to consider, cache does not increase bandwidth this is true. It can however make more of a given bandwidth available for other uses. In the older G4 and G3 processors increasing the cach can have a dramatic impact on perfromance as it leaves the bus available for other things. Not to mention of course the timing issues across a slow bus, which as you point out is a reduction in latency.
While I have been trumpeting an increase in cache size there are a number of things that could be improved with the 970 that would make better use of the cache it currently has. Wether things such as the no-oped cache instructions have been re-implemented is an open question at the moment. All I can say is that I'm eagerly awaiting the latest and greatest information.
Cache helped the G3 and G4's because their bandwidth was horrible. Most large problems (e.g. really big heavy processing jobs) require bandwidth because there is no way to fit half a gig of data into the cache.
Cache matters much less for a machine with better bandwidth.
Originally posted by Yevgeny
Cache helped the G3 and G4's because their bandwidth was horrible. Most large problems (e.g. really big heavy processing jobs) require bandwidth because there is no way to fit half a gig of data into the cache.
Cache matters much less for a machine with better bandwidth.
That's right.
However cache have better latency than the mobo ram.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
That's right.
However cache have better latency than the mobo ram.
True, but any real problem will be many many many times larger than the cache. Cache is useful, but not as useful as some people think, especially for heavy number crunching problems. I'd take a 15% increase in bandwidth over a 100% increase in cache size any day.
Well I have to take acception to the last part of your message first. The demand for cases in the PC market place is drivne by the consumer, possibly much more than you realize. The reality is that there are more form factors available in the PC market place than is seen in the Apple world. Traditional towers can be found in numerous shapes and size to fit the users need. If a tower won't fit the bill small for factor machines are all the rage now, especially for people looking for portable power.
I have nothing agianst Apple doing better. As you have pointed out it is possible to do so. The question is why haven't they done so. Specifically for the pro line where flexibility is important and does not add that much in the way of additional cost.
Mind you I'm not complaining about the iMac line which serves its market well, even if expansion and up grades are an issue. But when one looks at the size of a G5 tower and the utter lack of expandability in that machine it does cause wonderment. Now many have pointed out the availability of external devices, but these don't really serve the same purpose as an internal device. In any event the whole purpose of a tower type enclosure is to provide internal expansion capability in the form of internal devices. A tower without these capabilities might as well be sold as an all in one.
Suppose that you wanted to resell a G5 into a specific market and lets say that market can make use of an extra CD/DVD reader writer device and an all in one card reader. Shipping just one item is the ideal way to handle this from the business stand point. Looking at it from the other direction if your purchasing for a large company, it is much easier to keep track of one item as opposed to three. While extremely minor the security issue is real also, internally mounted dvices do slow people with sticky fingers down if only a little amount.
It is because of the fact that the technology is constantly changing that makes upgradeable machines so important. Those fliers as often have state of the art harddrives in them, not at huge discounts, but being marketed to people who precieve a need for them. Personally I thought that I had my need of harddisk space under control a few years ago, with space for my personal stuff, a few linux images and a bunch of applicaitons. Then I did something that almost everybody is doing, I bought a digital camera.
Now that does not sound like much, what is one little cameras impact on a PC. Well come to find out one can take a vacation and shoot a giga byte of data in no time at all. Even after the deletion of those pics that should neve see the light of day, one still has a huge amount of data. So with this one little purchase I've placed my haddrive on to the have to upgrade list along with my CDROM writer. Even at todays prices it still makes sense to go out and puchase a DVD writer as opposed to a new machine with a DVD writer in it. Now as to the question of internal or external.
Well if the space is available, the rational place for the harddrive is internal to the PC. Hey I've even given consideration to building an external raid box to serve as a NAS device, but such flights of fancy are always hit squarely with the reality that I work for a living. An external DVD Writer is only rational if you have other machines to hook it up to, and can justify the extra expsense and clutter. Looking at my desk now, clutter is an issue why add to it?
Dave
Originally posted by Amorph
If things are selling well, you don't have to run specials on them. All the things you mention have short effective shelf lives because the tech is constantly getting better, which is where the incentives come in to issue those fliers.
Also, I think there's more expansion on the PC side just because people believe there's more need for it, or skimp on features at purchase because the geek they've dragged along to help them with all those confusing things has told them they can always add something later.
It's all needless trouble and complexity most of the time. In fact, were it not for Apple, it would be much worse. If there was any great consumer demand for internal expansion, wouldn't someone have made it easier? But who made it easier? Before Apple's cases for the x600 towers and the G3, taking a PC case apart involved lots of screws and sharp edges and fiddling. Even now it's often needlessly difficult to extricate something or put it in. So, again, zero market research was done. The PC tower is not a product of demand. It's a product of inertia and manufacturer convenience. If Apple intends to sell machines based on what consumers want to use, they have to do better than that. And I believe that they are.