Honestly, the 500Mhz difference per processor isn't all that big of a deal...
Faster RAM, PCIe, better graphics cards would be much more appreciated.
Not true at all. Go read the results of Intels new chipset with PCIe, SATA RAID and DDR2. I'd take the 500Mhz. Every users will notice that benefit while very few will notice the effects of PCIe or faster RAM.
We as computer fans are placing too much emphasis on technological evolution. We assume that 64bit is undeniably superiour to 32bit. That 4Ghz is faster than 3Ghz. That increasing the theoretical maximum of a bus will somehow speed up a device. I believe our expectations are too high.
I think for an appreciable gain in speed Apple is going to have to do more than just add PCIe or DDR2.
I think they'll need to move to ondie memory controllers to reduce memory latency.
I think they'll need to add a couple of drive bays and some RAID functionality. Native Command Queuing support is vital.
I think they'll need to improve the software(OSX) in areas like Java and OpenGL to realize more speed.
Real world speed gains only happen when you directly address the bottlenecks of your hardware. Video isn't a bottleneck. HD throughput isn't a bottleneck. Right now a user can really only bank on the 500Mhz making the biggest difference of these computers. Even if Apple had added all the goodies there are no guarantees the the Powermacs would be any faster.
Yeah, and that 500Mhz only matters if *CPU* is a bottleneck. I'd bet that hard drive access is *way* more of a bottleneck in terms of time spent waiting for a harddrive read or write.
True, there are people for whom faster CPUs would matter, but aren't CPU-intensive operations still sometimes memory performance bound?
You have accomplished something that is very difficult, your posting is at once very accurate and also very misleading. Statements like these "Video isn't a bottleneck. HD throughput isn't a bottleneck." must be taken in context. There are many applications where these are the bottle necks and the extra 500MHz would not offer much to the user. As far as the video question it is pretty much accepted that MAC, in base configurations, are rather behind the times and as a result poor performers.
As to some othe the other technologies mentioned yes intial reports are always wanting. It could be argured that this is always the case. The problem is that software often has to catch up to exploit the performance. With things like SATA even the drives themselves did not initially fully exploit the interface.
As to technological evolution to a certain extent "fans" have to be focused on the development of technology. That is what pushes things forward. Dissatisfaction with things like video performance has driven the development of much better video cards for example. Sure there are bumps along the way but this just part of building a stronge future.
So yeah concentration on technology in my mind is what moves this industry forward. Everyone wants better performance from their machines, thus the interest in what may deliver that performance increment to them. People just have to realize that a technology does not always deliver its full potential at introduction.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Not true at all. Go read the results of Intels new chipset with PCIe, SATA RAID and DDR2. I'd take the 500Mhz. Every users will notice that benefit while very few will notice the effects of PCIe or faster RAM.
We as computer fans are placing too much emphasis on technological evolution. We assume that 64bit is undeniably superiour to 32bit. That 4Ghz is faster than 3Ghz. That increasing the theoretical maximum of a bus will somehow speed up a device. I believe our expectations are too high.
I think for an appreciable gain in speed Apple is going to have to do more than just add PCIe or DDR2.
I think they'll need to move to ondie memory controllers to reduce memory latency.
I think they'll need to add a couple of drive bays and some RAID functionality. Native Command Queuing support is vital.
I think they'll need to improve the software(OSX) in areas like Java and OpenGL to realize more speed.
Real world speed gains only happen when you directly address the bottlenecks of your hardware. Video isn't a bottleneck. HD throughput isn't a bottleneck. Right now a user can really only bank on the 500Mhz making the biggest difference of these computers. Even if Apple had added all the goodies there are no guarantees the the Powermacs would be any faster.
Comments
Originally posted by CDonG4
Honestly, the 500Mhz difference per processor isn't all that big of a deal...
Faster RAM, PCIe, better graphics cards would be much more appreciated.
Not true at all. Go read the results of Intels new chipset with PCIe, SATA RAID and DDR2. I'd take the 500Mhz. Every users will notice that benefit while very few will notice the effects of PCIe or faster RAM.
We as computer fans are placing too much emphasis on technological evolution. We assume that 64bit is undeniably superiour to 32bit. That 4Ghz is faster than 3Ghz. That increasing the theoretical maximum of a bus will somehow speed up a device. I believe our expectations are too high.
I think for an appreciable gain in speed Apple is going to have to do more than just add PCIe or DDR2.
I think they'll need to move to ondie memory controllers to reduce memory latency.
I think they'll need to add a couple of drive bays and some RAID functionality. Native Command Queuing support is vital.
I think they'll need to improve the software(OSX) in areas like Java and OpenGL to realize more speed.
Real world speed gains only happen when you directly address the bottlenecks of your hardware. Video isn't a bottleneck. HD throughput isn't a bottleneck. Right now a user can really only bank on the 500Mhz making the biggest difference of these computers. Even if Apple had added all the goodies there are no guarantees the the Powermacs would be any faster.
True, there are people for whom faster CPUs would matter, but aren't CPU-intensive operations still sometimes memory performance bound?
As to some othe the other technologies mentioned yes intial reports are always wanting. It could be argured that this is always the case. The problem is that software often has to catch up to exploit the performance. With things like SATA even the drives themselves did not initially fully exploit the interface.
As to technological evolution to a certain extent "fans" have to be focused on the development of technology. That is what pushes things forward. Dissatisfaction with things like video performance has driven the development of much better video cards for example. Sure there are bumps along the way but this just part of building a stronge future.
So yeah concentration on technology in my mind is what moves this industry forward. Everyone wants better performance from their machines, thus the interest in what may deliver that performance increment to them. People just have to realize that a technology does not always deliver its full potential at introduction.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Not true at all. Go read the results of Intels new chipset with PCIe, SATA RAID and DDR2. I'd take the 500Mhz. Every users will notice that benefit while very few will notice the effects of PCIe or faster RAM.
We as computer fans are placing too much emphasis on technological evolution. We assume that 64bit is undeniably superiour to 32bit. That 4Ghz is faster than 3Ghz. That increasing the theoretical maximum of a bus will somehow speed up a device. I believe our expectations are too high.
I think for an appreciable gain in speed Apple is going to have to do more than just add PCIe or DDR2.
I think they'll need to move to ondie memory controllers to reduce memory latency.
I think they'll need to add a couple of drive bays and some RAID functionality. Native Command Queuing support is vital.
I think they'll need to improve the software(OSX) in areas like Java and OpenGL to realize more speed.
Real world speed gains only happen when you directly address the bottlenecks of your hardware. Video isn't a bottleneck. HD throughput isn't a bottleneck. Right now a user can really only bank on the 500Mhz making the biggest difference of these computers. Even if Apple had added all the goodies there are no guarantees the the Powermacs would be any faster.
Well maybe apple could pay IBM some money to add some stages and fix the 130nm 970 to get to 3 GHz if they thought it were important
Bolting CPU stages on is not always possible or feasible.
As far as the video question it is pretty much accepted that MAC, in base configurations, are rather behind the times and as a result poor performers.
One excuse for the GeForce 5200s: they're the Ultra variant, which should be enough for 2D users.
Who will be the first to mention that MAC is Media Access Control? (oops, looks like it's me).