I think you miss the point. The idea here is expanding Apple's marketshare. Apple already owns the digital video and audio market. Not much to gain here.
But Apple currently has hardly any presence in the 3D market. Yet with Maya for Mac OS X Apple for the first time has a real opportunity to make inroads, to gain marketshare. Apple can't be sitting on their hands - or they'll lose that chance.
Apple should do all it can to help, even if it means they have to write the driver for one of these Pro cards themselves. Afterall, do they want to expand into a new market or not?
I wasn't talking about Alienware either. In my book the bigger contender is Boxx Tech. They're cheaper and reportedly better.
And if you look at the GoBOXX Key Specs (bottom right hand corner) you can get an idea what a portable 3D workstation really needs to look like - as opposed to a 17" PowerBook with 1.5GHz.
It's really not about bytching at all. It's about an opportunity for Apple, which should not be lost, because that would be a shame.
But then again, maybe Apple is happy with its iTunes and iMovie and no longer gives anything about the 3D market...
Actually I configured a BOXX first. #1 they were way more expensive, and gave me less stuff using the same parts. And #2 they didn't have the Nvidia Quadro FX 4000. They had the QFX 3000G, but were still more expensive than the Alienware. Plus I like the Alienware cases. At least they are an original design, and I think they look awesome. The first thing I noticed when Apple originally announced G5's was that the newest case was totally ripped off from BOXX tech. They just didn't perform like a BOXX.
So do you mean that releasing 2x500MHz faster machines doesn't get Apple any closer to 3D pros?! Come on, guys, did you even look at the price? You get a 25% faster machine for the same $3k. Please, stop bitching. If you are such a professional, you can afford a better GPU. The fact is, 99% of computer users don't know what the hell Maya is. The fact is, Radeon 9600 XT doesn't suck for 99.99% people on earth. Why do you think Apple should offer anything more by default? There is no such thing like an ideal computer. If you need it, do it yourself, damnit. </rant>
25% faster at the same price with everything else the same ONE YEAR LATER. only mac users think they are getting deals no matter how old the previous generation was. it's bizarre.
99% of computer users are not mac users.....99% are not power mac buyers.... you're logic is fucked up.
the radeon 9600 XT does suck when you are paying 3,000 dollars for last year's machine with a new unavailable liquid cooled 500Mhz speed boost and there are significantly better cards out there that others have for much less.
mature individuals know how cope with disappointment.
Yep. We quietly don't buy one of the new machines or buy a Wintel box that has the features we want/need.
The new 2.5GHz machine isn't terrible, but it's already 4-6 mos old. To be at the front of the pack, there are other things besides CPU speed Apple needed. We were expecting front of the pack features and got a middle of the pack speed bump. I guess now we just have to wait for all those other features to become middle of the pack requirements and then Apple will release machines with them.
Apple won't die, but they also won't be the shining star we'd like them to be.
/fingers crossed for PCI-Express, SATA 2, Hypertransport 2, and dual layer DVD writers by MWSF05.
25% faster at the same price with everything else the same ONE YEAR LATER.
Absolute frenzy.
Is 25% too little, or is one year too late or is everything the same too bad? There are just no faster and cheaper and more modern PowerMacs. Either this PowerMac or Wintel. Relax and stop bitching already.
Quote:
the radeon 9600 XT does suck when you are paying 3,000 dollars for last year's machine with a new unavailable liquid cooled 500Mhz speed boost and there are significantly better cards out there that others have for much less.
Once again, do you bitch about every sucky product ever made on this damn planet? Or are you specifically picky about Apple? What makes Apple so much different that they can't offer a sucky computer? If you ask me, there are no computers cheaper than $500 which justify their cost. They all are a waste of money. On the contrary, these PowerMacs are impressively good machines for a zillion of purposes. And Radeon 9600 XT is much better than many people need. Availability, as BTO, of higher end cards is a must, but nothing comes at once. Can you at least be patient enough to wait until they start shipping?
Is 25% too little, or is one year too late or is everything the same too bad? There are just no faster and cheaper and more modern PowerMacs. Either this PowerMac or Wintel. Relax and stop bitching already.
Once again, do you bitch about every sucky product ever made on this damn planet? Or are you specifically picky about Apple? What makes Apple so much different that they can't offer a sucky computer? If you ask me, there are no computers cheaper than $500 which justify their cost. They all are a waste of money. On the contrary, these PowerMacs are impressively good machines for a zillion of purposes. And Radeon 9600 XT is much better than many people need. Availability, as BTO, of higher end cards is a must, but nothing comes at once. Can you at least be patient enough to wait until they start shipping?
I think we are different about Apple. I could care less about other companies. I want Apple to produce competitive hardware so the software and the company itself can be healthy long term.
I don't complain about every bad product on the planet. I complain about Apple because I love Macs.
Apple should have some sort of headless, competitive option available for less than $2000, period, end of discussion. They should not be tossing $50-75 video cards into $2500 towers. That is bullshit no matter how fanatical you are about Macs. I mean the only thing they could do worse is add integrated Apple Extreme Graphics that are mounted on the motherboard.
All these machines should have better memory/hd/and video cards. Apple DOES control that. That isn't about whether IBM can get a certain yield or anything else. That is about Steve's private jet.
I think the reason there are not more powerful graphics cards is mainly because of ADC. Apple is currently locked into ADC because of their monitors. The new flat panels with DVI will come out at WWDC and then 4 or 5 months later, when IBM gets their yields up, you will see two new powermacs with the current machine going to the middle of the lineup. The current machines are just their to bridge the gap before the real update. Apple can't help that IBM screwed up but they will set things right as soon as they can.
When IBM gets their act together you will see 2.2, 2.5, 2.8 or perhaps 3.0Ghz. They just are not ready. However, the fact that the 2.5Ghz machine is shipping in august means that they are getting somewhere or at least believe they are. Lets put it this way a 500Mhz speed boost in a year is more than we ever got from motorola, so we are doing better. And in one year we have gone from dual 1.42Ghz G4s to dual 2.5 Ghz G5s. If we were with moto we would still be at 1.4ghz lol
25% faster at the same price with everything else the same ONE YEAR LATER. only mac users think they are getting deals no matter how old the previous generation was. it's bizarre.
99% of computer users are not mac users.....99% are not power mac buyers.... you're logic is fucked up.
the radeon 9600 XT does suck when you are paying 3,000 dollars for last year's machine with a new unavailable liquid cooled 500Mhz speed boost and there are significantly better cards out there that others have for much less.
I think your logic is fucked up. The G5's of a year ago were already so advanced as far as system architecture goes that I dont think it's crazy to say that these new improvements are too small.
I think your logic is fucked up. The G5's of a year ago were already so advanced as far as system architecture goes that I dont think it's crazy to say that these new improvements are too small.
advice: remove head from Jobs' ass
or
go give a graduation speech about your apple fetish
Apple PowerMac G5 w/17" Digital LCD compared to a Dell Dimension XPS w/17" Digital LCD.
That comparison is laughable. First of all, you should be comparing the PowerMac to a dual Opteron system, not Dell's gamer-orientated overpriced XPS line. It is misleading (cache comparisons) and outright lies on certain points (1.8GHz = 3.3GHz P4 LOL! No viruses for OS X?). It would get ripped to shreds on any place like Ars's Battlefront.
But at what speeds were the Intel and Amd camp last when the G5's were realesed at WWDC versus today?
P4, P4 xeon, opteron etc...
maclogic
Here is what I dug up:
July 2003
Athlon XP 3200+ (2.2GHz/400)
Athlon MP 2800+ (2.133GHz)
P4 XEON 3.0GHz/533 Sock 603
P4-3.0CGHz/800 Sock 478 Northwood
January 2004
Opteron 246 (2.0GHz)
Athlon 64 FX-51 (2.2GHz/1600)
Athlon 64 3400+ (2.2GHz/1600)
Athlon XP 3200+ (2.2GHz/400)
XEON 3.0GHz/533 Sock 604
P4-3.2CGHz/800 Extreme Sock 478 Northwood
P4-3.0CGHz/800 Sock 478 Northwood
Today
Opteron 250 (2.4GHz)
Athlon 64 FX-53 (2.4GHz/Socket 939
Athlon 64 3800+ (2.4GHz/Socket 939)
Athlon XP 3200+ (2.2GHz/400)
P4 XEON 3.2GHz/533 Sock 604
P4-3.4CGHz/800 Sock 478 Northwood
4-3.2CGHz/800 Extreme Sock 478 Northwood
As you can see the processors on the PC side have not been increasing any faster then the G5.
The Intel XEON has only increased by 200 MHz in the last year while the P4 increased by 400MHz, The P$ extream has jumped up by 200 MHz in the last six months.
On the AMD side the Athlon XP toped out at 2.2 GHz last year and will see no more increases. The Opteron has increased by 400MHz while the Athlon 64 and 64 FX have increased by 200 Mhz
The G5s 500 MHz boost is in the same general range as the competition's, and as longs as there is another speed bump in about 4 months, things are looking quite good.
The G5s 500 MHz boost is in the same general range as the competition's, and as longs as there is another speed bump in about 4 months, things are looking quite good.
But how likely is that, given that the top-end PowerMac won't even be shipping for at least another month. It's exceedingly unlikely. PowerMacs are upgraded on average every 6 months. Given the obvious problems they've been having with manufacturing faster G5s, it's likely that we'll wait longer than that this time around.
The dual 2.5s will compare very nicely to the dual Opterons. A quick perusal of the battlefront's benchmark threads showed that the G5 as it stands is about 30%-40% behind the dual Opteron overall (mostly ~30% behind except for Maya), which means the 2.5 should pull about even with it (again, except for Maya performance). No it won't crush AMD but it maintains general parity. The 3.0 would have placed the G5 well in the lead, but this isn't bad.
The dual 2.5s will compare very nicely to the dual Opterons. A quick perusal of the battlefront's benchmark threads showed that the G5 as it stands is about 30%-40% behind the dual Opteron overall (mostly ~30% behind except for Maya), which means the 2.5 should pull about even with it (again, except for Maya performance). No it won't crush AMD but it maintains general parity. The 3.0 would have placed the G5 well in the lead, but this isn't bad.
And concerning Maya the Macs are a disadvantage using consumer cards. The 970 and the Opteron are very close in performance. AMD basically bet their behinds on the K8(opteron) and luckily they hit a homerun. They are also lucky that PCs sell for much lower margin per computer because the Opteron is expensive but low cost ancillary equipment allows it to maintain sane system pricing.
I'm pretty sure the 2.5 Powermac is going to be pretty damn fast bringing whole new meaning to the statement "G5 optimized"
But how likely is that, given that the top-end PowerMac won't even be shipping for at least another month. It's exceedingly unlikely. PowerMacs are upgraded on average every 6 months. Given the obvious problems they've been having with manufacturing faster G5s, it's likely that we'll wait longer than that this time around.
Truly it all depends on how long it takes IBM to work out the problems, but a 200MHz speed bump (and/or a price drop) sometime around October or November is a possibility.
The way things are working out for the PC side, to stay competitive we won't really need a 3GHz G5 until the beginning of next year -- Of course I really want one now...
The only way the g5 will match performances is with bigger cache and dual mem controllers on the dual mobos... 1 mem controller is not cutting it to battle against the opteron. Either way... these new macs still kick ass. I mean they are SMOKING Intel systems FINALLY!! Thats 1 down 1 to go. But as long as they are at least on par with the top pc line... i'm happy. Only thing we can ask for is better graphics cards... 9800xt was a good card 7-8 months ago... times have changed...
Quote:
Originally posted by Fluffy
The dual 2.5s will compare very nicely to the dual Opterons. A quick perusal of the battlefront's benchmark threads showed that the G5 as it stands is about 30%-40% behind the dual Opteron overall (mostly ~30% behind except for Maya), which means the 2.5 should pull about even with it (again, except for Maya performance). No it won't crush AMD but it maintains general parity. The 3.0 would have placed the G5 well in the lead, but this isn't bad.
The link above contain benchmarks of 2GHz G5. Considering that 2.5GHz G5's are about 25% faster, we still have a way to go on some applications. The G5 is a photoshop king, but not by much. Don't forget we have 3.2GHz Xeons and 2.4GHz ("3800+") Opterons out too so factor that into these benchmarks. But it should give one an idea of where the G5 stands.
Comments
Originally posted by costique
If you are such a professional, you can afford a better GPU.
How that if such card does not exist for the Mac? And I am not talking about the 9800.
Firstly, Apple admitted they failed. That's a pretty exceptional example of Apple's corporate behaviour.
Yes, this is remarkable. And something I respect.
Originally posted by hobBIT
I think you miss the point. The idea here is expanding Apple's marketshare. Apple already owns the digital video and audio market. Not much to gain here.
But Apple currently has hardly any presence in the 3D market. Yet with Maya for Mac OS X Apple for the first time has a real opportunity to make inroads, to gain marketshare. Apple can't be sitting on their hands - or they'll lose that chance.
Apple should do all it can to help, even if it means they have to write the driver for one of these Pro cards themselves. Afterall, do they want to expand into a new market or not?
I wasn't talking about Alienware either. In my book the bigger contender is Boxx Tech. They're cheaper and reportedly better.
And if you look at the GoBOXX Key Specs (bottom right hand corner) you can get an idea what a portable 3D workstation really needs to look like - as opposed to a 17" PowerBook with 1.5GHz.
It's really not about bytching at all. It's about an opportunity for Apple, which should not be lost, because that would be a shame.
But then again, maybe Apple is happy with its iTunes and iMovie and no longer gives anything about the 3D market...
Actually I configured a BOXX first. #1 they were way more expensive, and gave me less stuff using the same parts. And #2 they didn't have the Nvidia Quadro FX 4000. They had the QFX 3000G, but were still more expensive than the Alienware. Plus I like the Alienware cases. At least they are an original design, and I think they look awesome. The first thing I noticed when Apple originally announced G5's was that the newest case was totally ripped off from BOXX tech. They just didn't perform like a BOXX.
Originally posted by costique
So do you mean that releasing 2x500MHz faster machines doesn't get Apple any closer to 3D pros?! Come on, guys, did you even look at the price? You get a 25% faster machine for the same $3k. Please, stop bitching. If you are such a professional, you can afford a better GPU. The fact is, 99% of computer users don't know what the hell Maya is. The fact is, Radeon 9600 XT doesn't suck for 99.99% people on earth. Why do you think Apple should offer anything more by default? There is no such thing like an ideal computer. If you need it, do it yourself, damnit. </rant>
25% faster at the same price with everything else the same ONE YEAR LATER. only mac users think they are getting deals no matter how old the previous generation was. it's bizarre.
99% of computer users are not mac users.....99% are not power mac buyers.... you're logic is fucked up.
the radeon 9600 XT does suck when you are paying 3,000 dollars for last year's machine with a new unavailable liquid cooled 500Mhz speed boost and there are significantly better cards out there that others have for much less.
Originally posted by Big Mac
mature individuals know how cope with disappointment.
Yep. We quietly don't buy one of the new machines or buy a Wintel box that has the features we want/need.
The new 2.5GHz machine isn't terrible, but it's already 4-6 mos old. To be at the front of the pack, there are other things besides CPU speed Apple needed. We were expecting front of the pack features and got a middle of the pack speed bump. I guess now we just have to wait for all those other features to become middle of the pack requirements and then Apple will release machines with them.
Apple won't die, but they also won't be the shining star we'd like them to be.
/fingers crossed for PCI-Express, SATA 2, Hypertransport 2, and dual layer DVD writers by MWSF05.
- Jasen.
Originally posted by applenut
25% faster at the same price with everything else the same ONE YEAR LATER.
Absolute frenzy.
Is 25% too little, or is one year too late or is everything the same too bad? There are just no faster and cheaper and more modern PowerMacs. Either this PowerMac or Wintel. Relax and stop bitching already.
the radeon 9600 XT does suck when you are paying 3,000 dollars for last year's machine with a new unavailable liquid cooled 500Mhz speed boost and there are significantly better cards out there that others have for much less.
Once again, do you bitch about every sucky product ever made on this damn planet? Or are you specifically picky about Apple? What makes Apple so much different that they can't offer a sucky computer? If you ask me, there are no computers cheaper than $500 which justify their cost. They all are a waste of money. On the contrary, these PowerMacs are impressively good machines for a zillion of purposes. And Radeon 9600 XT is much better than many people need. Availability, as BTO, of higher end cards is a must, but nothing comes at once. Can you at least be patient enough to wait until they start shipping?
Originally posted by costique
Absolute frenzy.
Is 25% too little, or is one year too late or is everything the same too bad? There are just no faster and cheaper and more modern PowerMacs. Either this PowerMac or Wintel. Relax and stop bitching already.
Once again, do you bitch about every sucky product ever made on this damn planet? Or are you specifically picky about Apple? What makes Apple so much different that they can't offer a sucky computer? If you ask me, there are no computers cheaper than $500 which justify their cost. They all are a waste of money. On the contrary, these PowerMacs are impressively good machines for a zillion of purposes. And Radeon 9600 XT is much better than many people need. Availability, as BTO, of higher end cards is a must, but nothing comes at once. Can you at least be patient enough to wait until they start shipping?
I think we are different about Apple. I could care less about other companies. I want Apple to produce competitive hardware so the software and the company itself can be healthy long term.
I don't complain about every bad product on the planet. I complain about Apple because I love Macs.
Apple should have some sort of headless, competitive option available for less than $2000, period, end of discussion. They should not be tossing $50-75 video cards into $2500 towers. That is bullshit no matter how fanatical you are about Macs. I mean the only thing they could do worse is add integrated Apple Extreme Graphics that are mounted on the motherboard.
All these machines should have better memory/hd/and video cards. Apple DOES control that. That isn't about whether IBM can get a certain yield or anything else. That is about Steve's private jet.
Nick
But at what speeds were the Intel and Amd camp last when the G5's were realesed at WWDC versus today?
P4, P4 xeon, opteron etc...
maclogic
When IBM gets their act together you will see 2.2, 2.5, 2.8 or perhaps 3.0Ghz. They just are not ready. However, the fact that the 2.5Ghz machine is shipping in august means that they are getting somewhere or at least believe they are. Lets put it this way a 500Mhz speed boost in a year is more than we ever got from motorola, so we are doing better. And in one year we have gone from dual 1.42Ghz G4s to dual 2.5 Ghz G5s. If we were with moto we would still be at 1.4ghz lol
Originally posted by applenut
25% faster at the same price with everything else the same ONE YEAR LATER. only mac users think they are getting deals no matter how old the previous generation was. it's bizarre.
99% of computer users are not mac users.....99% are not power mac buyers.... you're logic is fucked up.
the radeon 9600 XT does suck when you are paying 3,000 dollars for last year's machine with a new unavailable liquid cooled 500Mhz speed boost and there are significantly better cards out there that others have for much less.
I think your logic is fucked up. The G5's of a year ago were already so advanced as far as system architecture goes that I dont think it's crazy to say that these new improvements are too small.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
I think your logic is fucked up. The G5's of a year ago were already so advanced as far as system architecture goes that I dont think it's crazy to say that these new improvements are too small.
advice: remove head from Jobs' ass
or
go give a graduation speech about your apple fetish
either way, makes more sense than your last post
Mac vs. PC System Shootouts - $2,800 Desktops 6/09/04
Apple PowerMac G5 w/17" Digital LCD compared to a Dell Dimension XPS w/17" Digital LCD.
Originally posted by tink
For all those comparison shopping here on the board, here is one more source of info.
Mac vs. PC System Shootouts - $2,800 Desktops 6/09/04
Apple PowerMac G5 w/17" Digital LCD compared to a Dell Dimension XPS w/17" Digital LCD.
That comparison is laughable. First of all, you should be comparing the PowerMac to a dual Opteron system, not Dell's gamer-orientated overpriced XPS line. It is misleading (cache comparisons) and outright lies on certain points (1.8GHz = 3.3GHz P4 LOL! No viruses for OS X?). It would get ripped to shreds on any place like Ars's Battlefront.
Originally posted by maclogic
Sorry but I have a short memory!
But at what speeds were the Intel and Amd camp last when the G5's were realesed at WWDC versus today?
P4, P4 xeon, opteron etc...
maclogic
Here is what I dug up:
July 2003
Athlon XP 3200+ (2.2GHz/400)
Athlon MP 2800+ (2.133GHz)
P4 XEON 3.0GHz/533 Sock 603
P4-3.0CGHz/800 Sock 478 Northwood
January 2004
Opteron 246 (2.0GHz)
Athlon 64 FX-51 (2.2GHz/1600)
Athlon 64 3400+ (2.2GHz/1600)
Athlon XP 3200+ (2.2GHz/400)
XEON 3.0GHz/533 Sock 604
P4-3.2CGHz/800 Extreme Sock 478 Northwood
P4-3.0CGHz/800 Sock 478 Northwood
Today
Opteron 250 (2.4GHz)
Athlon 64 FX-53 (2.4GHz/Socket 939
Athlon 64 3800+ (2.4GHz/Socket 939)
Athlon XP 3200+ (2.2GHz/400)
P4 XEON 3.2GHz/533 Sock 604
P4-3.4CGHz/800 Sock 478 Northwood
4-3.2CGHz/800 Extreme Sock 478 Northwood
As you can see the processors on the PC side have not been increasing any faster then the G5.
The Intel XEON has only increased by 200 MHz in the last year while the P4 increased by 400MHz, The P$ extream has jumped up by 200 MHz in the last six months.
On the AMD side the Athlon XP toped out at 2.2 GHz last year and will see no more increases. The Opteron has increased by 400MHz while the Athlon 64 and 64 FX have increased by 200 Mhz
The G5s 500 MHz boost is in the same general range as the competition's, and as longs as there is another speed bump in about 4 months, things are looking quite good.
Originally posted by Res
The G5s 500 MHz boost is in the same general range as the competition's, and as longs as there is another speed bump in about 4 months, things are looking quite good.
But how likely is that, given that the top-end PowerMac won't even be shipping for at least another month. It's exceedingly unlikely. PowerMacs are upgraded on average every 6 months. Given the obvious problems they've been having with manufacturing faster G5s, it's likely that we'll wait longer than that this time around.
Originally posted by Fluffy
The dual 2.5s will compare very nicely to the dual Opterons. A quick perusal of the battlefront's benchmark threads showed that the G5 as it stands is about 30%-40% behind the dual Opteron overall (mostly ~30% behind except for Maya), which means the 2.5 should pull about even with it (again, except for Maya performance). No it won't crush AMD but it maintains general parity. The 3.0 would have placed the G5 well in the lead, but this isn't bad.
And concerning Maya the Macs are a disadvantage using consumer cards. The 970 and the Opteron are very close in performance. AMD basically bet their behinds on the K8(opteron) and luckily they hit a homerun. They are also lucky that PCs sell for much lower margin per computer because the Opteron is expensive but low cost ancillary equipment allows it to maintain sane system pricing.
I'm pretty sure the 2.5 Powermac is going to be pretty damn fast bringing whole new meaning to the statement "G5 optimized"
Originally posted by BRussell
But how likely is that, given that the top-end PowerMac won't even be shipping for at least another month. It's exceedingly unlikely. PowerMacs are upgraded on average every 6 months. Given the obvious problems they've been having with manufacturing faster G5s, it's likely that we'll wait longer than that this time around.
Truly it all depends on how long it takes IBM to work out the problems, but a 200MHz speed bump (and/or a price drop) sometime around October or November is a possibility.
The way things are working out for the PC side, to stay competitive we won't really need a 3GHz G5 until the beginning of next year -- Of course I really want one now...
Originally posted by Fluffy
The dual 2.5s will compare very nicely to the dual Opterons. A quick perusal of the battlefront's benchmark threads showed that the G5 as it stands is about 30%-40% behind the dual Opteron overall (mostly ~30% behind except for Maya), which means the 2.5 should pull about even with it (again, except for Maya performance). No it won't crush AMD but it maintains general parity. The 3.0 would have placed the G5 well in the lead, but this isn't bad.
Originally posted by emig647
I mean they are SMOKING Intel systems FINALLY!!
Actually, it's a pretty mixed bag.
http://www.geocities.com/sw_perf/
The link above contain benchmarks of 2GHz G5. Considering that 2.5GHz G5's are about 25% faster, we still have a way to go on some applications. The G5 is a photoshop king, but not by much. Don't forget we have 3.2GHz Xeons and 2.4GHz ("3800+") Opterons out too so factor that into these benchmarks. But it should give one an idea of where the G5 stands.
Apple, we really needed that 3GHz mac.