I know, personally i am very happy to see a 90 nm G5, even if the design is nearly the same than the 130 nm one. IBM is one of the first companie to ship 90 nm CPU (intel is starting to ship prescott, but very slowly).
The next design, with Multithreading, and larger L2 cache will came later. IBM is right to avoid to simultaneously upgrade both the fabbing process and the design (except the minor tweaks needed for a die shrunk) : one step after one other.
In the context of the G5's, especially any revised models, I have ot disagree with you. First, cahce adresses latenancy which is rather large on the G5. Second the differrential between the RAM speed nad the porcessor speed in set to increase dramatically. Even if Apple addresses this with newer and faster RAM technology I suspect that they will have a hard time keeping the same ratios between processor speed and RAM speed.
The impact that cahce can have on large problems, even bandwidth bound ones, can be profound. A well designed cache can act as a prefetch unit in some applications, making data available before it is actually needed by the processor. Further even the "really big heavy processing jobs" come in many differrent flavors some of which can use that extra cache. This doesn't even take into account the issue of having multipel applications running.
But that isn't really my concern. What I want ot see is that the PPC is moving forward with IBM leading development. Maybe there are more performance enhancements in the 90 nm 970 then have been made public. If so that would be fantastic, in any event I'm eagerly awaiting the release of all details.
Dave
Quote:
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.
Would your preference for bandwidth over cache not be dependnat on the TYPE of number crunching you are doing? I suspect that there are more instances where cache and improvements to cache will help more than bandwidth.
In fact it can be argued that many of the 970's problems with the execution of vector code can be traced to a reliance on bandwidth to make up for use of an inteligent cache subsystem. The fact that some of the cahce instructions don't work with vector code has impacted the peformance of this execution unit. Now I will be the first to admit that implementing these instructions would be a smart move on IBM's part but it does point out your belief in bandwidth does not always solve the problem at hand.
A large well implemented cache is the only solution to the reality that we are not likely to ever have memory subsytems running at the speed of the processor in the near future. Much more likely is that things will get worst in the future. I would love to see a 3GHz G5 form Apple at the end of the month, but I have little to no hope that the memory will scale at that rate. The elastice bus may scale at that rate, but that only means the waites are now in the memory controller. Even in the case of a modest improvement in memory performance the ratio is still larger. There are ways to address this of course but cache is the only one that comes to mind for the present G5 design.
Wider memory systems, on board memory controllers and other bandwidth improvements are fine, but do explain to us how they would work with the present G5 implementation? It would surprise me to no end if Apple were to come out with a new memory controller for the G5 that addressed the bandwidth problem significantly. That would result in a G6 in my book. The days of memory systems runing at the same rate as the processor are long gone.
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by Yevgeny
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.
"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."
Anthesis so whats so wrong about iDVD then? ... The reality is that even if you are not a PRO user there is other DVD burning software out there...
The reality is that macs are more expensive...but then so are BMW's compared to Saturn... BUT YOU GET A BETTER PRODUCT. The eMAC was originally designed for an edu market and was only release when consumers put pressure on apple to release it public. It was never designed to be a home machine that's what the iMAC is. Sure its not expandable as some would wish but that's its thing.. for consmers who want software and hardware all to connect.
"Antithesis:
Why would I buy $999 worth of product that I?m going to use for personal (amateur) home video?"
Question why would you buy a 999 dollar product... because it works everytime. iDVD's a damn fine program for basic home movies is designed to work with iMovie, and now iTunes
sure if you want that extra functionality you need to buy Studio Pro but even iDVD can be tweaked to provide excellent results. The fact is that the majority of other DVD burning software out there at the level of iDVD is at much Higher price. If you want more features why should you expect apple give you that product for basically free? Unlike imovie FC Express and FCP where FC Express builds on features of iMovie and is essentially a stripped down version of FCP there is no technical room for apple to release a mid market product in the DVD authoring stakes without risking sales of Studio PRO. My studio uses iDVD also to quickly mock up prototype DVD's and then builds the project in studio pro to great success and if your only doing home movies then what's your beef?
"Antithesis:
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?? "
Because it appears you want it on the cheap. It seems you want a pro machine on an eMac budget. My point on money was not to start a p****ing contest on who spent more but to get the message out that you get what you pay for. It seems that every one want Apple to build than a G5 for a dollar. That my beef. Frankly there is not a void in the product line that way you describe. Its only a gap if you cant afford it and your PROSUMER DESIRES dont reach the FINANCIAL REALITY of the cost of equipment... Quick frankly the feature's that iDVD does not have for you are absurd to the 99.9% of consmers users for whom iDVD works. The other .1% well they have had a strong enough taste of iDVD to warrant the so called "expensive $999 purchase..." The question I have for you is does a Wintel machine even come to filling your "void" P.S. YOU KNOW YOU CANT FILL A VOID... DONT YOU... Dont tell me win movie-maker stacks up and it all works seamlessly on every PC because that's just crap. You know and i know that Apple is the only company out there where entry level software (iMovie) works with entry level authoring (iDVD) with a STABLE os ( MAC OSX ) with built in hardware everytime with no issues... and thats what the masses want. Maybe Apple just thinks your void is unprofitable... and unreasonable.
"Antithesis:
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."
Ah, here we go. To answer your question I not only have macs but several PC's... reason... because sometimes a PC is more useful, ie in personal financial trading applications and for use as web app testbench. Because my financial apps will run natively and it does run slower up VPC ( an operating system running an operating system running an app is slower that an operating system running an app) and there is no port to mac osX.
I have used and authored on PC's
for many years and my switch to macs becoming my primary machines in business came in the late 80's I run the latest version of XP and red hat Linux as OS's for our testbench Our machines are supplied by HP with Intel processors. Quite frankly i find XP a pain the ... Reason... it tries to copy MAC OSX and yet fails the one thing I need intergration. MACS because they are H/W and S/W solution just work and I dont f#*! around with drivers like i do with XP. Linux is buggy and hard to deal with without over understanding to os. I want my studio to work and not worry about the OS....Macs let them do this. PS just to show that i am not just picking on wintel I do use a ipaq Pocket PC ( Which i sync to my mac ) Some time wintel is better... when its a glorified address book. Although i give credit to Alienware for having a go...
"Antithesis:
Point is, some of Apple?s software WILL NOT WORK with external drives (iDVD)."
iDVD is a simple elegant solution.... What do you want for $49 bucks...its an all in one process buy mac and your done. Studio PRO supports a large range of burners if that is what you are talking about. I use an external burner as well for back up. APPLE PROVIDES A FULL LIST OF SUPPORTED DRIVES ON ITS WEBSITE for STUDIO PRO AND FCP. Does M$ do this.. i think not. Once again research before you buy your drive. My external supports finder burning as well as a free copy of toast Lt I got with it..
Anthesis so whats so wrong about iDVD then? ... The reality is that even if you are not a PRO user there is other DVD burning software out there...
There's nothing 'wrong' with iDVD, save the fact that one NEEDS a superdrive-equipped Macintosh to utilize iDVD to burn to the drive. I believe I stated this in my last post.
Quote:
The reality is that macs are more expensive...but then so are BMW's compared to Saturn... BUT YOU GET A BETTER PRODUCT.
Oh, boy. This one, again. Okay, I'll start at the beginning.
You cannot compare automobiles to computers UNLESS you are comparing GASOLINE automobiles to those powered by OTHER FUEL SOURCES.
Quote:
The eMAC was originally designed for an edu market and was only release when consumers put pressure on apple to release it public. It was never designed to be a home machine that's what the iMAC is. Sure its not expandable as some would wish but that's its thing.. for consmers who want software and hardware all to connect.
And tell me, Celco, why is it that you think so many consumers put pressure on Apple to release this product? I mean, it had the SAME innards as the iMac (FP) at the time. Same drives, same video card, same AIO features. There were only THREE exceptions: flat panel display, external casing, and price.
Which do YOU think was the motivating factor?
Quote:
Question why would you buy a 999 dollar product... because it works everytime.
I don't believe that you and I are on the same wavelength. Quite frankly, I'm not sure how to convey basic elements of finance in a way that you'll comprehend.
Do you HONESTLY believe that I would consider a software package that FAR EXCEEDS MY NEEDS, and at the same time, voice my concerns about Apple's inflated price points when the software package EXCEEDS the price of the comptuer just because, "it works everytime." If that's the case, I'll be more than happy to list printer drivers for the PC that, "work every time, " and, "fail repeatedly, " on the Macintosh OS.
You're not comparing apple's to oranges, sir. You're not even in the same orchard.
Quote:
Because it appears you want it on the cheap. It seems you want a pro machine on an eMac budget.
Perhaps I want a machine that will perform the tasks I set to it that is somewhere within the confines of my budget. Since I have NOT stated that I need G5 (re: PRO) power, and have NOT stated what my budget is, I find it incredible that you have come to this conclusion.
While you're at it, can you tell me what is so 'pro machine' about wanting a DVD burner and a middle-of-the-line video card?
Quote:
My point on money was not to start a p****ing contest on who spent more but to get the message out that you get what you pay for.
Really? Is that what this charming quote of yours is supposed to convey?
Quote:
Originally posted by Celco
"I Am sick of people on this post BITCHING about PRICE. GET A JOB DUDE!"
Hey, if you're that financially stable that everyone who wants value out of their computer is BITCHING, then surely you can pony up the cash to buy us all computers, eh? Because those of us with less than 'professional' needs and a stay at home wife and two children surely need to, "get a job, " even though we already have one, eh?
Quote:
It seems that every one want Apple to build than a G5 for a dollar. That my beef.
Perhaps your 'beef' is that you do not take the time to accurately read posts and consider each one as an individual critique by a Macintosh OWNER and STOCKHOLDER.
Perhaps this is why you still think that I somehow 'need' a G5 in my machine.
Quote:
Frankly there is not a void in the product line that way you describe. Its only a gap if you cant afford it and your PROSUMER DESIRES dont reach the FINANCIAL REALITY of the cost of equipment
You DO realize that when you open your (G3/G4) Macintosh, and you open your PC at home, they have the EXACT SAME PARTS save the motherboard, processor and case, right?
Quote:
Quick frankly the feature's that iDVD does not have for you are absurd to the 99.9% of consmers users for whom iDVD works. The other .1% well they have had a strong enough taste of iDVD to warrant the so called "expensive $999 purchase..."
Really? Wow. And here I've seen folks posting at OTHER Macintosh sites (xlr8yourmac, dealchat, etc.) actually WANTING the ability to burn DVDs to external drives.
Jeez, that 0.1% sure seemed pretty big to me. I must've been mistaken.
Quote:
The question I have for you is does a Wintel machine even come to filling your "void" P.S. YOU KNOW YOU CANT FILL A VOID... DONT YOU... Dont tell me win movie-maker stacks up and it all works seamlessly on every PC because that's just crap. You know and i know that Apple is the only company out there where entry level software (iMovie) works with entry level authoring (iDVD) with a STABLE os ( MAC OSX ) with built in hardware everytime with no issues... and thats what the masses want.
Yes, a windows machine has come closer (in the absence of a Macintosh) to filling my 'void'. Is it a perfect solution? Of course not.
I'm curious about your perception of how DVD burning somehow works 'seamlessly' on a Macintosh, but is problem-ridden on a PC. You have bounced over to the MacFixIt site and done a search on iDVD haven't you? You have gone to the AppleInsider DigitalHub folder and done a search on iDVD haven't you?
Obviously, you haven't. Because if you DID, you'd find that there are a great many people who do not share your view that iDVD works, "everytime with no issues."
Quote:
Maybe Apple just thinks your void is unprofitable... and unreasonable.
You may be right. And the beautiful thing about being a consumer with a choice is that I can CHOOSE to purchase other-branded machines and software.
Likewise, if Apple ever does decide to fill that 'void', I can switch back to a Macintosh.
Quote:
iDVD is a simple elegant solution.... What do you want for $49 bucks
And if it were ONLY $49 bucks, we wouldn't be having this pleasant exchange of ideas, would we?
But as I've pointed out in my previous posts, the cost of a Macintosh that supports iDVD and my graphics needs is currently set at $1699. A lot different than $49. Wouldn't you agree?
And tell me, Celco, why is it that you think so many consumers put pressure on Apple to release this product? I mean, it had the SAME innards as the iMac (FP) at the time. Same drives, same video card, same AIO features. There were only THREE exceptions: flat panel display, external casing, and price.
Which do YOU think was the motivating factor?
All three are. When you buy an AIO computer, the display is important, as is the casing and the price.
You're not comparing apple's to oranges, sir. You're not even in the same orchard.
what the ****'s tat supposed to mean?
Perhaps I want a machine that will perform the tasks I set to it that is somewhere within the confines of my budget. Since I have NOT stated that I need G5 (re: PRO) power, and have NOT stated what my budget is, I find it incredible that you have come to this conclusion.
While you're at it, can you tell me what is so 'pro machine' about wanting a DVD burner and a middle-of-the-line video card?
get an imac with a dvd burner
Really? Is that what this charming quote of yours is supposed to convey?
Most of your words are garbage anyways. "I don't believe that you and I are on the same wavelength. Quite frankly, I'm not sure how to convey basic elements of finance in a way that you'll comprehend" ... meaningless
You DO realize that when you open your (G3/G4) Macintosh, and you open your PC at home, they have the EXACT SAME PARTS save the motherboard, processor and case, right?
Those three parts are what make up a computer. The cable routing is also different. The power supply is also different. When you purchase a computer, you aren't purchasing the parts, you are purchasing the whole integrated solution.
But as I've pointed out in my previous posts, the cost of a Macintosh that supports iDVD and my graphics needs is currently set at $1699. A lot different than $49. Wouldn't you agree?
In fact it can be argued that many of the 970's problems with the execution of vector code can be traced to a reliance on bandwidth to make up for use of an inteligent cache subsystem
It could also be that's current Altivec code has been hand written/optimised for the G4 (which is bandwidth starved but has good cache). IIRC the 970's vector units are somewhere between the 7400 and the 7450 in performance per clock.
Quote:
Ultimately I believe that this processor will end up being Apples processor for the low end machines. Why not make it all it can be?
That's been true of all Macs' CPUs since the G3: eventually they become low end, and are replaced by G(i++).
I have just gone Homebrew PC as well after being a stanch Powermac user for the last 10 years...
There is just not the flexibility I need in the current line up... they are also way, way overpriced in todays market, G5 or no G5.
I need 2 Optical drive bays...
I need more than 2 HD Bays...
I want IDE as well as SATA...
Marc
That was a bad design on their part. The lack of drive bays should have been looked at with a Pro tower like this. Granted if people were worried about sound levels, they could have gone external firewire in another room with this machine. I don't know if it was just because Apple was just so intent on the sound and well cooling of the system. Apple did do an A+ job with sound and cooling.
Maybe they didn't have a choice with the large G5 heat sink and the heat it produces.
All three are. When you buy an AIO computer, the display is important, as is the casing and the price.
So, let me get this straight. Your assertion is that there were a significant number of consumers who PREFERRED the fixed-display look of the egg-shaped eMac over the elegance of the iMac's adjustable arm and screen. And your assertion is also that the clarity and specifications of the eMac's CRT display was more in-demand than the iMac's LCD Flat Panel display. And that these two factors, along with price, caused an uproar in the Macintosh community that caused Apple to change thier distribution plans?
Yeah, we're gonna disagree on this one, I think. Because I have yet to hear one person say, "Wow, that eMac's a looker. but the iMac--not so much."
Quote:
what the ****'s tat supposed to mean?
Okay, we'll do this one more time, for those who missed it: I originally posted that I thought the price of the Macintosh hardware was too high for what I was getting--specifically with regard to having to buy a Superdrive-equipped machine in order to utilize iDVD. So, as a rebuttal, Celco told me that the solution to my price quandry was to buy a Macintosh AND a $999 piece of DVD-making software.
See how bizarre the response was? I mean, if someone can't nearly see to buying a $1000 computer, then why would they buy said computer AND and ADDITIONAL $1000 WORTH OF SOFTWARE?
Quote:
get an imac with a dvd burner
As I indicated before, the iMac comes equipped with a FIXED video card THAT YOU CAN NEVER UPGRADE. As it is, this video card is OUTDATED even by today's standards. So, once I buy the iMac, I would BARELY be able to utilize the software I have today, let alone be compatible with what comes down the pike tomorrow.
Quote:
Most of your words are garbage anyways. "I don't believe that you and I are on the same wavelength. Quite frankly, I'm not sure how to convey basic elements of finance in a way that you'll comprehend" ... meaningless
And yet, you see fit to respond to them. In detail, as a matter of fact. Guess they must have SOME meaning for you to take the time to address them, eh?
Quote:
Those three parts are what make up a computer. The cable routing is also different. The power supply is also different. When you purchase a computer, you aren't purchasing the parts, you are purchasing the whole integrated solution.
Yes, the motherboard, processor, and case are the main parts that make up a computer. However, there are MANY manufacturers for these three parts, and when you take a good look at how much they charge, and how much Apple charges, you begin to get a good idea about WHO gives you more value for your money. Apple does NOT give you good (G4) hardware value for your money.
But they give you GREAT (OSX) software value for your money. Which, I believe, was the other part of your statement (that you're puchasing the 'integrated solution').
Quote:
that is a fair price.
Well that's the trick, isn't it? Each person determines what's a 'fair price' for them. What may be great for you, may not be great for me. And that's the whole point of these web boards. Two folks with opposing ideas can share them.
So, let me get this straight. Your assertion is that there were a significant number of consumers who PREFERRED the fixed-display look of the egg-shaped eMac over the elegance of the iMac's adjustable arm and screen. And your assertion is also that the clarity and specifications of the eMac's CRT display was more in-demand than the iMac's LCD Flat Panel display. And that these two factors, along with price, caused an uproar in the Macintosh community that caused Apple to change thier distribution plans?
<snippety>
The eMac had a G4 processor from the outset while the iMac was equipped with a G3.
This along with the form-factor and the price was what made people want the eMac for everyone. All of the above, thus.
So, let me get this straight. Your assertion is that there were a significant number of consumers who PREFERRED the fixed-display look of the egg-shaped eMac over the elegance of the iMac's adjustable arm and screen. And your assertion is also that the clarity and specifications of the eMac's CRT display was more in-demand than the iMac's LCD Flat Panel display. And that these two factors, along with price, caused an uproar in the Macintosh community that caused Apple to change thier distribution plans?
Yeah, we're gonna disagree on this one, I think. Because I have yet to hear one person say, "Wow, that eMac's a looker. but the iMac--not so much."
that paragraph was meaningless
Okay, we'll do this one more time, for those who missed it: I originally posted that I thought the price of the Macintosh hardware was too high for what I was getting--specifically with regard to having to buy a Superdrive-equipped machine in order to utilize iDVD. So, as a rebuttal, Celco told me that the solution to my price quandry was to buy a Macintosh AND a $999 piece of DVD-making software.
See how bizarre the response was? I mean, if someone can't nearly see to buying a $1000 computer, then why would they buy said computer AND and ADDITIONAL $1000 WORTH OF SOFTWARE?
get a superdrived equipped macchine and iDVD
As I indicated before, the iMac comes equipped with a FIXED video card THAT YOU CAN NEVER UPGRADE. As it is, this video card is OUTDATED even by today's standards. So, once I buy the iMac, I would BARELY be able to utilize the software I have today, let alone be compatible with what comes down the pike tomorrow.
the geforce4mx is not outdated. im doing fine with the original radeon. most people dont upgrade video cards anyways. they buy a whole new computer
And yet, you see fit to respond to them. In detail, as a matter of fact. Guess they must have SOME meaning for you to take the time to address them, eh?
they are garbage because they are so unecessarily wordy. your english is the suck. language is supposed to be concise
Yes, the motherboard, processor, and case are the main parts that make up a computer. However, there are MANY manufacturers for these three parts, and when you take a good look at how much they charge, and how much Apple charges, you begin to get a good idea about WHO gives you more value for your money. Apple does NOT give you good (G4) hardware value for your money.
apple builds the computers, provides hardware and software support, tests each parts together for compatibility, etc. it is worth it. most homebuilt PCs are less stable than stuff from dell, hp, compaq etc.
The eMac had a G4 processor from the outset while the iMac was equipped with a G3.
This along with the form-factor and the price was what made people want the eMac for everyone. All of the above, thus.
Actually, the eMac and iMac BOTH had G4 processors. According to everymac, the G4 iMac (FP) came out in January of 2002, and the G4 eMac came out in April of 2002.
Thus, the eMac has NEVER competed with a G3 (FP) iMac.
I'd like to purchase a new computer a couple of months from now. I don't like the way the imacs look, never have, and won't purchase one. So that leaves me buying a tower. Before some of you go off and tell me to quit being cheap or something, I'm willing to spend a more for better quality but the lack of funds limits how much more I'm willing to spend. With that said...
As a litmus test I was able to get a computer from Dell's site for $1500 that fits my needs/wants. That price includes the computer, 17" FP, and 3 year customer support.
Apple's site the cheapest computer that fit my needs/wants was the low-end G5. Including 17" FP and 3 year customer support came to approximately $2900 (estimated on tax). I can subtract $500 for being a student, so that drops the price to $2400. Do you think I need the 3 year support for the G5? If not I can drop $200 more off that price. Also, if, as some people on this board have been saying, Apple comes out with the 20" FP as the low-end and keeps the same price as the 17" FP current model, then I believe that would solidify my purchase of an Apple system. This computer also would come with better software.
Bear in mind that I grew up using Apple, want to purchase a Mac as my next computer, however, my funds are possibly hindering me in that respect. Because I have to upgrade the computer I have relatively soon, I can't wait forever to save up or hope there are significant price drops, etc.
Seeing how the conversations of this thread digressed from the topic to a debate about imac's versus the low end tower/prosumer tower I feel my request is fitting because it discusses just that: the low-end tower versus a cheaper consumer tower by a competitor, i.e. Dell.
I thought about posting another topic in General Discussion and guess I will now at your request, but I thought I'd use an already existing thread that had moved from it's original topic about G5 Xserve to a discussion about imacs and towers.
... Apple's site the cheapest computer that fit my needs/wants was the low-end G5. Including 17" FP and 3 year customer support came to approximately $2900 (estimated on tax). I can subtract $500 for being a student, so that drops the price to $2400. Do you think I need the 3 year support for the G5? If not I can drop $200 more off that price. ...
Considered getting the display from Dell and using it on a refurb G5? Refurb 1.6's are $1395. Apple's monitor prices are too high, Dell's are good and the display is just as good (17"). Actually, the real bargain these days is CRT's...
I'd like to purchase a new computer a couple of months from now. I don't like the way the imacs look, never have, and won't purchase one. So that leaves me buying a tower. Before some of you go off and tell me to quit being cheap or something, I'm willing to spend a more for better quality but the lack of funds limits how much more I'm willing to spend. With that said...
As a litmus test I was able to get a computer from Dell's site for $1500 that fits my needs/wants. That price includes the computer, 17" FP, and 3 year customer support.
Apple's site the cheapest computer that fit my needs/wants was the low-end G5. Including 17" FP and 3 year customer support came to approximately $2900 (estimated on tax). I can subtract $500 for being a student, so that drops the price to $2400. Do you think I need the 3 year support for the G5? If not I can drop $200 more off that price. Also, if, as some people on this board have been saying, Apple comes out with the 20" FP as the low-end and keeps the same price as the 17" FP current model, then I believe that would solidify my purchase of an Apple system. This computer also would come with better software.
Bear in mind that I grew up using Apple, want to purchase a Mac as my next computer, however, my funds are possibly hindering me in that respect. Because I have to upgrade the computer I have relatively soon, I can't wait forever to save up or hope there are significant price drops, etc.
Comments? Advice?
Regards!
There's always the option to build your own machine...
I did and have not regretted it for a minute. It should also com ein waaayyyy under budget even for a top of the line machine.
Comments
The next design, with Multithreading, and larger L2 cache will came later. IBM is right to avoid to simultaneously upgrade both the fabbing process and the design (except the minor tweaks needed for a die shrunk) : one step after one other.
The impact that cahce can have on large problems, even bandwidth bound ones, can be profound. A well designed cache can act as a prefetch unit in some applications, making data available before it is actually needed by the processor. Further even the "really big heavy processing jobs" come in many differrent flavors some of which can use that extra cache. This doesn't even take into account the issue of having multipel applications running.
But that isn't really my concern. What I want ot see is that the PPC is moving forward with IBM leading development. Maybe there are more performance enhancements in the 90 nm 970 then have been made public. If so that would be fantastic, in any event I'm eagerly awaiting the release of all details.
Dave
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.
In fact it can be argued that many of the 970's problems with the execution of vector code can be traced to a reliance on bandwidth to make up for use of an inteligent cache subsystem. The fact that some of the cahce instructions don't work with vector code has impacted the peformance of this execution unit. Now I will be the first to admit that implementing these instructions would be a smart move on IBM's part but it does point out your belief in bandwidth does not always solve the problem at hand.
A large well implemented cache is the only solution to the reality that we are not likely to ever have memory subsytems running at the speed of the processor in the near future. Much more likely is that things will get worst in the future. I would love to see a 3GHz G5 form Apple at the end of the month, but I have little to no hope that the memory will scale at that rate. The elastice bus may scale at that rate, but that only means the waites are now in the memory controller. Even in the case of a modest improvement in memory performance the ratio is still larger. There are ways to address this of course but cache is the only one that comes to mind for the present G5 design.
Wider memory systems, on board memory controllers and other bandwidth improvements are fine, but do explain to us how they would work with the present G5 implementation? It would surprise me to no end if Apple were to come out with a new memory controller for the G5 that addressed the bandwidth problem significantly. That would result in a G6 in my book. The days of memory systems runing at the same rate as the processor are long gone.
Dave
Originally posted by Yevgeny
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.
"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."
Anthesis so whats so wrong about iDVD then? ... The reality is that even if you are not a PRO user there is other DVD burning software out there...
The reality is that macs are more expensive...but then so are BMW's compared to Saturn... BUT YOU GET A BETTER PRODUCT. The eMAC was originally designed for an edu market and was only release when consumers put pressure on apple to release it public. It was never designed to be a home machine that's what the iMAC is. Sure its not expandable as some would wish but that's its thing.. for consmers who want software and hardware all to connect.
"Antithesis:
Why would I buy $999 worth of product that I?m going to use for personal (amateur) home video?"
Question why would you buy a 999 dollar product... because it works everytime. iDVD's a damn fine program for basic home movies is designed to work with iMovie, and now iTunes
sure if you want that extra functionality you need to buy Studio Pro but even iDVD can be tweaked to provide excellent results. The fact is that the majority of other DVD burning software out there at the level of iDVD is at much Higher price. If you want more features why should you expect apple give you that product for basically free? Unlike imovie FC Express and FCP where FC Express builds on features of iMovie and is essentially a stripped down version of FCP there is no technical room for apple to release a mid market product in the DVD authoring stakes without risking sales of Studio PRO. My studio uses iDVD also to quickly mock up prototype DVD's and then builds the project in studio pro to great success and if your only doing home movies then what's your beef?
"Antithesis:
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?? "
Because it appears you want it on the cheap. It seems you want a pro machine on an eMac budget. My point on money was not to start a p****ing contest on who spent more but to get the message out that you get what you pay for. It seems that every one want Apple to build than a G5 for a dollar. That my beef. Frankly there is not a void in the product line that way you describe. Its only a gap if you cant afford it and your PROSUMER DESIRES dont reach the FINANCIAL REALITY of the cost of equipment... Quick frankly the feature's that iDVD does not have for you are absurd to the 99.9% of consmers users for whom iDVD works. The other .1% well they have had a strong enough taste of iDVD to warrant the so called "expensive $999 purchase..." The question I have for you is does a Wintel machine even come to filling your "void" P.S. YOU KNOW YOU CANT FILL A VOID... DONT YOU...
"Antithesis:
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."
Ah, here we go. To answer your question I not only have macs but several PC's... reason... because sometimes a PC is more useful, ie in personal financial trading applications and for use as web app testbench. Because my financial apps will run natively and it does run slower up VPC ( an operating system running an operating system running an app is slower that an operating system running an app) and there is no port to mac osX.
I have used and authored on PC's
for many years and my switch to macs becoming my primary machines in business came in the late 80's I run the latest version of XP and red hat Linux as OS's for our testbench Our machines are supplied by HP with Intel processors. Quite frankly i find XP a pain the ... Reason... it tries to copy MAC OSX and yet fails the one thing I need intergration. MACS because they are H/W and S/W solution just work and I dont f#*! around with drivers like i do with XP. Linux is buggy and hard to deal with without over understanding to os. I want my studio to work and not worry about the OS....Macs let them do this. PS just to show that i am not just picking on wintel I do use a ipaq Pocket PC ( Which i sync to my mac ) Some time wintel is better... when its a glorified address book. Although i give credit to Alienware for having a go...
"Antithesis:
Point is, some of Apple?s software WILL NOT WORK with external drives (iDVD)."
iDVD is a simple elegant solution.... What do you want for $49 bucks...its an all in one process buy mac and your done. Studio PRO supports a large range of burners if that is what you are talking about. I use an external burner as well for back up. APPLE PROVIDES A FULL LIST OF SUPPORTED DRIVES ON ITS WEBSITE for STUDIO PRO AND FCP. Does M$ do this.. i think not. Once again research before you buy your drive. My external supports finder burning as well as a free copy of toast Lt I got with it..
Originally posted by Celco
Anthesis so whats so wrong about iDVD then? ... The reality is that even if you are not a PRO user there is other DVD burning software out there...
There's nothing 'wrong' with iDVD, save the fact that one NEEDS a superdrive-equipped Macintosh to utilize iDVD to burn to the drive. I believe I stated this in my last post.
The reality is that macs are more expensive...but then so are BMW's compared to Saturn... BUT YOU GET A BETTER PRODUCT.
Oh, boy. This one, again. Okay, I'll start at the beginning.
You cannot compare automobiles to computers UNLESS you are comparing GASOLINE automobiles to those powered by OTHER FUEL SOURCES.
The eMAC was originally designed for an edu market and was only release when consumers put pressure on apple to release it public. It was never designed to be a home machine that's what the iMAC is. Sure its not expandable as some would wish but that's its thing.. for consmers who want software and hardware all to connect.
And tell me, Celco, why is it that you think so many consumers put pressure on Apple to release this product? I mean, it had the SAME innards as the iMac (FP) at the time. Same drives, same video card, same AIO features. There were only THREE exceptions: flat panel display, external casing, and price.
Which do YOU think was the motivating factor?
Question why would you buy a 999 dollar product... because it works everytime.
I don't believe that you and I are on the same wavelength. Quite frankly, I'm not sure how to convey basic elements of finance in a way that you'll comprehend.
Do you HONESTLY believe that I would consider a software package that FAR EXCEEDS MY NEEDS, and at the same time, voice my concerns about Apple's inflated price points when the software package EXCEEDS the price of the comptuer just because, "it works everytime." If that's the case, I'll be more than happy to list printer drivers for the PC that, "work every time, " and, "fail repeatedly, " on the Macintosh OS.
You're not comparing apple's to oranges, sir. You're not even in the same orchard.
Because it appears you want it on the cheap. It seems you want a pro machine on an eMac budget.
Perhaps I want a machine that will perform the tasks I set to it that is somewhere within the confines of my budget. Since I have NOT stated that I need G5 (re: PRO) power, and have NOT stated what my budget is, I find it incredible that you have come to this conclusion.
While you're at it, can you tell me what is so 'pro machine' about wanting a DVD burner and a middle-of-the-line video card?
My point on money was not to start a p****ing contest on who spent more but to get the message out that you get what you pay for.
Really? Is that what this charming quote of yours is supposed to convey?
Originally posted by Celco
"I Am sick of people on this post BITCHING about PRICE. GET A JOB DUDE!"
Hey, if you're that financially stable that everyone who wants value out of their computer is BITCHING, then surely you can pony up the cash to buy us all computers, eh? Because those of us with less than 'professional' needs and a stay at home wife and two children surely need to, "get a job, " even though we already have one, eh?
It seems that every one want Apple to build than a G5 for a dollar. That my beef.
Perhaps your 'beef' is that you do not take the time to accurately read posts and consider each one as an individual critique by a Macintosh OWNER and STOCKHOLDER.
Perhaps this is why you still think that I somehow 'need' a G5 in my machine.
Frankly there is not a void in the product line that way you describe. Its only a gap if you cant afford it and your PROSUMER DESIRES dont reach the FINANCIAL REALITY of the cost of equipment
You DO realize that when you open your (G3/G4) Macintosh, and you open your PC at home, they have the EXACT SAME PARTS save the motherboard, processor and case, right?
Quick frankly the feature's that iDVD does not have for you are absurd to the 99.9% of consmers users for whom iDVD works. The other .1% well they have had a strong enough taste of iDVD to warrant the so called "expensive $999 purchase..."
Really? Wow. And here I've seen folks posting at OTHER Macintosh sites (xlr8yourmac, dealchat, etc.) actually WANTING the ability to burn DVDs to external drives.
Jeez, that 0.1% sure seemed pretty big to me. I must've been mistaken.
The question I have for you is does a Wintel machine even come to filling your "void" P.S. YOU KNOW YOU CANT FILL A VOID... DONT YOU...
Yes, a windows machine has come closer (in the absence of a Macintosh) to filling my 'void'. Is it a perfect solution? Of course not.
I'm curious about your perception of how DVD burning somehow works 'seamlessly' on a Macintosh, but is problem-ridden on a PC. You have bounced over to the MacFixIt site and done a search on iDVD haven't you? You have gone to the AppleInsider DigitalHub folder and done a search on iDVD haven't you?
Obviously, you haven't. Because if you DID, you'd find that there are a great many people who do not share your view that iDVD works, "everytime with no issues."
Maybe Apple just thinks your void is unprofitable... and unreasonable.
You may be right. And the beautiful thing about being a consumer with a choice is that I can CHOOSE to purchase other-branded machines and software.
Likewise, if Apple ever does decide to fill that 'void', I can switch back to a Macintosh.
iDVD is a simple elegant solution.... What do you want for $49 bucks
And if it were ONLY $49 bucks, we wouldn't be having this pleasant exchange of ideas, would we?
But as I've pointed out in my previous posts, the cost of a Macintosh that supports iDVD and my graphics needs is currently set at $1699. A lot different than $49. Wouldn't you agree?
Regards,
-Antithesis
And tell me, Celco, why is it that you think so many consumers put pressure on Apple to release this product? I mean, it had the SAME innards as the iMac (FP) at the time. Same drives, same video card, same AIO features. There were only THREE exceptions: flat panel display, external casing, and price.
Which do YOU think was the motivating factor?
All three are. When you buy an AIO computer, the display is important, as is the casing and the price.
You're not comparing apple's to oranges, sir. You're not even in the same orchard.
what the ****'s tat supposed to mean?
Perhaps I want a machine that will perform the tasks I set to it that is somewhere within the confines of my budget. Since I have NOT stated that I need G5 (re: PRO) power, and have NOT stated what my budget is, I find it incredible that you have come to this conclusion.
While you're at it, can you tell me what is so 'pro machine' about wanting a DVD burner and a middle-of-the-line video card?
get an imac with a dvd burner
Really? Is that what this charming quote of yours is supposed to convey?
Most of your words are garbage anyways. "I don't believe that you and I are on the same wavelength. Quite frankly, I'm not sure how to convey basic elements of finance in a way that you'll comprehend" ... meaningless
You DO realize that when you open your (G3/G4) Macintosh, and you open your PC at home, they have the EXACT SAME PARTS save the motherboard, processor and case, right?
Those three parts are what make up a computer. The cable routing is also different. The power supply is also different. When you purchase a computer, you aren't purchasing the parts, you are purchasing the whole integrated solution.
But as I've pointed out in my previous posts, the cost of a Macintosh that supports iDVD and my graphics needs is currently set at $1699. A lot different than $49. Wouldn't you agree?
that is a fair price.
In fact it can be argued that many of the 970's problems with the execution of vector code can be traced to a reliance on bandwidth to make up for use of an inteligent cache subsystem
It could also be that's current Altivec code has been hand written/optimised for the G4 (which is bandwidth starved but has good cache). IIRC the 970's vector units are somewhere between the 7400 and the 7450 in performance per clock.
Ultimately I believe that this processor will end up being Apples processor for the low end machines. Why not make it all it can be?
That's been true of all Macs' CPUs since the G3: eventually they become low end, and are replaced by G(i++).
Originally posted by The Placid Casual
I have just gone Homebrew PC as well after being a stanch Powermac user for the last 10 years...
There is just not the flexibility I need in the current line up... they are also way, way overpriced in todays market, G5 or no G5.
I need 2 Optical drive bays...
I need more than 2 HD Bays...
I want IDE as well as SATA...
Marc
That was a bad design on their part. The lack of drive bays should have been looked at with a Pro tower like this. Granted if people were worried about sound levels, they could have gone external firewire in another room with this machine. I don't know if it was just because Apple was just so intent on the sound and well cooling of the system. Apple did do an A+ job with sound and cooling.
Maybe they didn't have a choice with the large G5 heat sink and the heat it produces.
Originally posted by Nr9
All three are. When you buy an AIO computer, the display is important, as is the casing and the price.
So, let me get this straight. Your assertion is that there were a significant number of consumers who PREFERRED the fixed-display look of the egg-shaped eMac over the elegance of the iMac's adjustable arm and screen. And your assertion is also that the clarity and specifications of the eMac's CRT display was more in-demand than the iMac's LCD Flat Panel display. And that these two factors, along with price, caused an uproar in the Macintosh community that caused Apple to change thier distribution plans?
Yeah, we're gonna disagree on this one, I think. Because I have yet to hear one person say, "Wow, that eMac's a looker. but the iMac--not so much."
what the ****'s tat supposed to mean?
Okay, we'll do this one more time, for those who missed it: I originally posted that I thought the price of the Macintosh hardware was too high for what I was getting--specifically with regard to having to buy a Superdrive-equipped machine in order to utilize iDVD. So, as a rebuttal, Celco told me that the solution to my price quandry was to buy a Macintosh AND a $999 piece of DVD-making software.
See how bizarre the response was? I mean, if someone can't nearly see to buying a $1000 computer, then why would they buy said computer AND and ADDITIONAL $1000 WORTH OF SOFTWARE?
get an imac with a dvd burner
As I indicated before, the iMac comes equipped with a FIXED video card THAT YOU CAN NEVER UPGRADE. As it is, this video card is OUTDATED even by today's standards. So, once I buy the iMac, I would BARELY be able to utilize the software I have today, let alone be compatible with what comes down the pike tomorrow.
Most of your words are garbage anyways. "I don't believe that you and I are on the same wavelength. Quite frankly, I'm not sure how to convey basic elements of finance in a way that you'll comprehend" ... meaningless
And yet, you see fit to respond to them. In detail, as a matter of fact. Guess they must have SOME meaning for you to take the time to address them, eh?
Those three parts are what make up a computer. The cable routing is also different. The power supply is also different. When you purchase a computer, you aren't purchasing the parts, you are purchasing the whole integrated solution.
Yes, the motherboard, processor, and case are the main parts that make up a computer. However, there are MANY manufacturers for these three parts, and when you take a good look at how much they charge, and how much Apple charges, you begin to get a good idea about WHO gives you more value for your money. Apple does NOT give you good (G4) hardware value for your money.
But they give you GREAT (OSX) software value for your money. Which, I believe, was the other part of your statement (that you're puchasing the 'integrated solution').
that is a fair price.
Well that's the trick, isn't it? Each person determines what's a 'fair price' for them. What may be great for you, may not be great for me. And that's the whole point of these web boards. Two folks with opposing ideas can share them.
Regards,
-Antithesis
Originally posted by Antithesis
So, let me get this straight. Your assertion is that there were a significant number of consumers who PREFERRED the fixed-display look of the egg-shaped eMac over the elegance of the iMac's adjustable arm and screen. And your assertion is also that the clarity and specifications of the eMac's CRT display was more in-demand than the iMac's LCD Flat Panel display. And that these two factors, along with price, caused an uproar in the Macintosh community that caused Apple to change thier distribution plans?
<snippety>
The eMac had a G4 processor from the outset while the iMac was equipped with a G3.
This along with the form-factor and the price was what made people want the eMac for everyone. All of the above, thus.
So, let me get this straight. Your assertion is that there were a significant number of consumers who PREFERRED the fixed-display look of the egg-shaped eMac over the elegance of the iMac's adjustable arm and screen. And your assertion is also that the clarity and specifications of the eMac's CRT display was more in-demand than the iMac's LCD Flat Panel display. And that these two factors, along with price, caused an uproar in the Macintosh community that caused Apple to change thier distribution plans?
Yeah, we're gonna disagree on this one, I think. Because I have yet to hear one person say, "Wow, that eMac's a looker. but the iMac--not so much."
that paragraph was meaningless
Okay, we'll do this one more time, for those who missed it: I originally posted that I thought the price of the Macintosh hardware was too high for what I was getting--specifically with regard to having to buy a Superdrive-equipped machine in order to utilize iDVD. So, as a rebuttal, Celco told me that the solution to my price quandry was to buy a Macintosh AND a $999 piece of DVD-making software.
See how bizarre the response was? I mean, if someone can't nearly see to buying a $1000 computer, then why would they buy said computer AND and ADDITIONAL $1000 WORTH OF SOFTWARE?
get a superdrived equipped macchine and iDVD
As I indicated before, the iMac comes equipped with a FIXED video card THAT YOU CAN NEVER UPGRADE. As it is, this video card is OUTDATED even by today's standards. So, once I buy the iMac, I would BARELY be able to utilize the software I have today, let alone be compatible with what comes down the pike tomorrow.
the geforce4mx is not outdated. im doing fine with the original radeon. most people dont upgrade video cards anyways. they buy a whole new computer
And yet, you see fit to respond to them. In detail, as a matter of fact. Guess they must have SOME meaning for you to take the time to address them, eh?
they are garbage because they are so unecessarily wordy. your english is the suck. language is supposed to be concise
Yes, the motherboard, processor, and case are the main parts that make up a computer. However, there are MANY manufacturers for these three parts, and when you take a good look at how much they charge, and how much Apple charges, you begin to get a good idea about WHO gives you more value for your money. Apple does NOT give you good (G4) hardware value for your money.
apple builds the computers, provides hardware and software support, tests each parts together for compatibility, etc. it is worth it. most homebuilt PCs are less stable than stuff from dell, hp, compaq etc.
Originally posted by kroehl
The eMac had a G4 processor from the outset while the iMac was equipped with a G3.
This along with the form-factor and the price was what made people want the eMac for everyone. All of the above, thus.
Actually, the eMac and iMac BOTH had G4 processors. According to everymac, the G4 iMac (FP) came out in January of 2002, and the G4 eMac came out in April of 2002.
Thus, the eMac has NEVER competed with a G3 (FP) iMac.
Regards,
-Antithesis
And then, I read the following:
Originally posted by Nr9
..."your english is the suck. language is supposed to be concise."
Yeah. After that prophetic exposition, I think my debate with you is over, Nr9.
-Antithesis
P.S. Have a nice day.
I'd like to purchase a new computer a couple of months from now. I don't like the way the imacs look, never have, and won't purchase one. So that leaves me buying a tower. Before some of you go off and tell me to quit being cheap or something, I'm willing to spend a more for better quality but the lack of funds limits how much more I'm willing to spend. With that said...
As a litmus test I was able to get a computer from Dell's site for $1500 that fits my needs/wants. That price includes the computer, 17" FP, and 3 year customer support.
Apple's site the cheapest computer that fit my needs/wants was the low-end G5. Including 17" FP and 3 year customer support came to approximately $2900 (estimated on tax). I can subtract $500 for being a student, so that drops the price to $2400. Do you think I need the 3 year support for the G5? If not I can drop $200 more off that price. Also, if, as some people on this board have been saying, Apple comes out with the 20" FP as the low-end and keeps the same price as the 17" FP current model, then I believe that would solidify my purchase of an Apple system. This computer also would come with better software.
Bear in mind that I grew up using Apple, want to purchase a Mac as my next computer, however, my funds are possibly hindering me in that respect. Because I have to upgrade the computer I have relatively soon, I can't wait forever to save up or hope there are significant price drops, etc.
Comments? Advice?
Regards!
Originally posted by X X
Hey! I would like some serious advice...
if the dell is a serious option, buy the dell.
and if you really want some serious advice repost your post @ general discussion where it belongs.
...
what's the topic of this thread again?
Originally posted by gar
what's the topic of this thread again?
Seeing how the conversations of this thread digressed from the topic to a debate about imac's versus the low end tower/prosumer tower I feel my request is fitting because it discusses just that: the low-end tower versus a cheaper consumer tower by a competitor, i.e. Dell.
I thought about posting another topic in General Discussion and guess I will now at your request, but I thought I'd use an already existing thread that had moved from it's original topic about G5 Xserve to a discussion about imacs and towers.
Regards!
BTW, thanks for your advice.
Originally posted by X X
... Apple's site the cheapest computer that fit my needs/wants was the low-end G5. Including 17" FP and 3 year customer support came to approximately $2900 (estimated on tax). I can subtract $500 for being a student, so that drops the price to $2400. Do you think I need the 3 year support for the G5? If not I can drop $200 more off that price. ...
Considered getting the display from Dell and using it on a refurb G5? Refurb 1.6's are $1395. Apple's monitor prices are too high, Dell's are good and the display is just as good (17"). Actually, the real bargain these days is CRT's...
"IBM uses a 90-nanometer process to produce the PowerPC G5"
i know the speculation is that we'll have 2.6 on the high end, but what are some other possible #'s we'll see,
i know nothing about multipliers and whatnot!
Originally posted by X X
Hey! I would like some serious advice...
I'd like to purchase a new computer a couple of months from now. I don't like the way the imacs look, never have, and won't purchase one. So that leaves me buying a tower. Before some of you go off and tell me to quit being cheap or something, I'm willing to spend a more for better quality but the lack of funds limits how much more I'm willing to spend. With that said...
As a litmus test I was able to get a computer from Dell's site for $1500 that fits my needs/wants. That price includes the computer, 17" FP, and 3 year customer support.
Apple's site the cheapest computer that fit my needs/wants was the low-end G5. Including 17" FP and 3 year customer support came to approximately $2900 (estimated on tax). I can subtract $500 for being a student, so that drops the price to $2400. Do you think I need the 3 year support for the G5? If not I can drop $200 more off that price. Also, if, as some people on this board have been saying, Apple comes out with the 20" FP as the low-end and keeps the same price as the 17" FP current model, then I believe that would solidify my purchase of an Apple system. This computer also would come with better software.
Bear in mind that I grew up using Apple, want to purchase a Mac as my next computer, however, my funds are possibly hindering me in that respect. Because I have to upgrade the computer I have relatively soon, I can't wait forever to save up or hope there are significant price drops, etc.
Comments? Advice?
Regards!
There's always the option to build your own machine...
I did and have not regretted it for a minute. It should also com ein waaayyyy under budget even for a top of the line machine.
Peace,
Marc