I'm doubtful that a G5 dual 2 gig with 512 meg can take a raid, 3.5 gig, 2 gig of ram machine.
On Photoshop? 3D?
The keys thing? Scratches head. I know PPC does well on that. Altivec and all. But PS and 3D?
Post some benches for the specced machines and I'll cry uncle.
LBB ... just want you to know I don't have any beef with you... I think you're pretty cool.
First of all LBB... a 3500+ isn't 3.5ghz.... its 2.2ghz.
2nd of all, all I can find is a 512k l2 cache model in 3500+. My 3400+ (which is 2.4ghz has 1mb l2 cache).
3rd of all... the Powermac has 2 processors.
4th of all, the Powermac has a faster FSB.
5th of all raid doesn't mean anything when it comes to cpu computations.
6th of all ram only goes so far when benchmarking cpus.
7th of all the g5 is expandable to 16gigs of ram... not 3-4 in windows or 6-8 in linux.
The PC has things going for it: RAID, Graphics Card, up to PC4000 RAM (rare)... etc.
This dual 2.0 will take that machine. I posted what I scored in dnetc. I offered anyone to run dnetc against my mac. I offer anyone to run cinebench against my dual 2.0 mac. I will lose the GL score though. Now this is against a 3500+... I have a 3400+ and am well aware of what a 3500+ can pull off. As far as computational power.... my mac has the 3400 and 3500 because I have 2 processors ... otherwise the 3400 and 3500 are marginally ahead.
Quote:
As for Onlooker. I think he's right to blow his top at Apple's 'odd' stance in not providing 3D cards yet claiming to be a 'pro' customer provider via their PowerMacs.
You bashed Apple for reasons. Did you feel right to do so?
Apple are doing many great things. But they are flawed. They could do better.
It's Onlooker's, Matsu's or Lemon Bon Bon's democratic right to 'bash', whinge or argue for improvement.
You guys do have the right to bash on apple... and bash on any company out there. I agree. I bash on them too. Did I feel the right to bash on apple? Of course I did... but I kept myself open minded in doing so. I also didn't make it a 100% bash. I realized positive things apple had going for them. Personally I think a lot of the bashing comes from frustraction of mac users. They want to brag to their friends that their mac is the fastest thing since sliced bread so they can justify the price easily to their pc friends. I've been there. But now I'm on both sides of the fence. I have this really nice water cooled pc next to me and I only use it for games. Why? Because I can do things quicker and more efficient on my dual g5. Also have the stability. Sorry to get off topic...
Only problem with you guys bashing here is, it doesn't solve anything. Bash to apple public relations. Bash on the apple discussion boards. Apple employees are much more likey to browse those boards than here.
When the g5s were first released this year I was pretty disappointed. I had been waiting since January and wasn't happy with dual 2.0 being mid line. I also wasn't (am not) happy with the graphics cards they put in there. I understand why they didn't put in PCI-E though. I also have mixed feelings about the water cooling system they have going on. I'm also PISSED about them moving shipping dates back. I'm also disappointed in 1 optical drive. I'm also curious why they didn't bump the ram from pc 3200 to 3500.
So yah I can do my share of apple bashing too. I have more things I have said in the passed but you get the point. But I can also do this...
apple has mastered the dual processor production, apple has the fastest FSB, apple has a very silent system, apple has a low power consumption system most of the time, apple has a sexy looking system (inside and out), apple has a lot of expandability for ram, apple has pci-x, apple has a competitive processor, apple has etc etc etc.
All I was trying to get onlooker to do is quit saying that the Powermac isn't a professional machine. He's insane if he thinks otherwise. I'm starting to think he hasn't even used one yet in a work environment. Thats why I consider him a troll on these forums.
Onlooker does nothing BUT bash on apple. I haven't seem him give one freakin compliment all year long.
Quote:
Pro graphic cards.
A true workstation range.
A single cpu tower range under the 'dual cpu pro' Macs.
An iMac that costs 0 with a 9800 pro and 512 megs of ram.
A true 'cheap' headless Mac that replaces of complements the eMac. PC land can do Shuttle. Why can't Apple mini-tower? They should.
Apple don't offer enough choice.
They do skimp sometimes. Eg on ram and gpus on high end PowerMacs or iMacs. Low end. Okay. But mid-to high end? Gpus HAVE got to get better!
Have got to work on the cpu situation. They're 'nearly there'. (Hopefully Antares 970MP will finally deliver the Wintel Killer.)
Still need more productivity software aka office alternative.
People often argue Apple shouldn't or couldn't because Apple doesn't currently offer it.
That's fine.
I'm arguing that Apple could offer things that many smaller companies offer.
26% of Maya sales go to Mac. So why no Pro Card?
647% agreed bud. Apple needs a better GPU!! I agree with you so much on that one. That is my main beef with apple. They have been stuck on the same graphic cards for over 2 years. Let it go apple.
Quote:
A tower starting at 0? Insane. I'm not expecting one at . But...BUT(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), reason prevail...at least offer single cpu models that go from -5?
There is room for a headless/mini-tower in that range. Not art-museum peices but real solutions that can are attractive aka iMac 3 but not 'up my ar*e' solutions like iMac or Cube. Offer something a little plainer but stylish. Something PC land, something we can relate to.
There is a large ground swell of Mac support for a headless machine cheaper than the ridiculous 0 price start.
Apple thought there wasn't room for a machine 'tween iMac and PowerMac. ie cube. They were wrong. There wasn't room for an overpriced machine between the iMac and PowerMac.
With Apple...the devil is in the detail. Glaringly simple details.
Like why not offer 512 megs of ram when it's not much more expensive than 256? Nothing. for a better graphics card as opposed to the $16 piece of crap in the iMac 3?
Yeesh, for a little bit more...Apple could offer us so much more...I don't get why the 'BMW' of computers treats us so...
Lemon Bon Bon
LBB... I agree, apple needs another machine. I have a feeling its going to happen very soon. The cube was the biggest failure I have ever seen... why? Because of a stupid design. I mean it was a cool design... but for sales it was stupid. Very limited. Maybe apple should hold back a little on engineering and just get something out that would run OS X for 600-1000 that is a single proc mid-tower. Mini g5 would be cool! That could really spark an interest in this platform again. But make it single proc.
Anyways, I hope this clears some things up. To recap I'll bench my g5 against a 3400+ or a 3500+... I'll lose single proc by a little... but if all features are used the dual proc will win.
Why even test single proc? Thats like 66% of a powermac.
I think the next rev will hold speeds from 2-3Ghz in even 500Mhz steps, all dual.
PCI-E makes sense too, if the GPUs are there. Shouldn't cost more that AGP 8X, and it's a natural fit for what Apple proposes to do with "core" technologies in Tiger.
I don't think you'll see two slots though, One PCI-E and the rest PCI-X/133/66/whatever the legacy needs dictate
Maybe more RAM capacity in the base model.
That's what they will do.
What they should do is take a look at their lineup. Recognize that they sell a single G4 tower for 1299 and replace that machine with a single G5 tower for the same price.
I think the next rev will hold speeds from 2-3Ghz in even 500Mhz steps, all dual.
PCI-E makes sense too, if the GPUs are there. Shouldn't cost more that AGP 8X, and it's a natural fit for what Apple proposes to do with "core" technologies in Tiger.
I don't think you'll see two slots though, One PCI-E and the rest PCI-X/133/66/whatever the legacy needs dictate
Maybe more RAM capacity in the base model.
That's what they will do.
What they should do is take a look at their lineup. Recognize that they sell a single G4 tower for 1299 and replace that machine with a single G5 tower for the same price.
That could work... I know a lot of people that would buy a tower like that for around that price. Personally I'd buy an iMac if it didn't have that screen... so take that same setup and ditch the screen and drop about 300-400 bucks
That could work... I know a lot of people that would buy a tower like that for around that price. Personally I'd buy an iMac if it didn't have that screen... so take that same setup and ditch the screen and drop about 300-400 bucks
mmmm 1.6 g5 for 999. *shrugs*
I can't see Apple's problem with this.
Same for Matsu's comment. Can't Apple just replace the single G4 tower with a single G5 tower?
iMac buyers will buy iMacs.
Tower buyers will buy towers. More tower people will buy Apple towers if they didn't cost as much as £1400.
Then they (Apple) wheel out Freddy Anderson to defend sales of 200K. ie as if the days of high tower sales are over. Pass me the crack-pipe. Look at Dell, HP, Sony, IBM tower sales.
If Apple offered a fuller range of towers ie singles to complement their dual range then tower sales would go up 50-100% no bother.
Tower is what alot of Linux and PC and Tower buyers from the dark side understand. It's also what alot of Apple buyers understand and want.
I'd like to see a tower range from £695-£1295.
From 1.6 - 2.5 G5.
Tower G5 vs iMac G5.
Mano u Mano.
I'm confident which would win in sales.
Either way, Apple would win. They'd open up more of an Apple market to would be switchers.
Having to wait until £1400 before you can get a gaming Mac or a configurable Mac (in the real sense of the word) is quite absurd.
I hope the transition to dual core is swift. I hope AMD doesn't beat IBM to it. It would be really strange for THE maker of dual core cpus to lag behind AMD in the transition to dual core.
Are we looking at WWDC 2005 for Antares?
Or could a break neck introduction put the problems of the 970fx behind us?
A bump on the towers to 2.8? About worth it unless the bump comes much sooner than the 9 month cycle. The nine month update cycle puts us...at...next March? Might as well be Antares? Shipping June...heh...
Another 9 month wait for the Lemon, sigh...
Lemon Bon Bon
...and I'll want PCI-Express gaddammit. And the latest ram. And a graphics card with 512 megs on it! And SLI as a motherboard option.
And...dammit, a gig of ram for a £2100 machine.
...and a discount offer if I buy an Alu ie bundle. And I want damn fries with that too...to go...
I've just been over to Guru3D for the benches on Nvidia's hot mainstream card pending...
THE amazing 6600 GT, which, for the money, is a stunning performer and just the kind of card Apple SHOULD be putting in the top end iMac and low-mid PowerMacs.
IT thrapes Doom 3 in 1200x1000 with effects on. And just about playable in 1600x1200!
Turn the effects off and the frame rates climb.
It's going to be about $200 ie £120-ish. That is amazing.
I'd happily pay the extra £100 to have that card in a mid-top end iMac or a low-end PowerMac.
Apple. Wake up.
Stop peddling crap, CRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP GPUS on us.
I'd love the option to have the 6800 GT card in a mid-range PowerMac. The GT6800 is a stunning performer at a more reasonable price.
Choice. A wonderful thing...especially when you say SLI in the same breath...
The problem is people over the years have always expected an immediate speed increase when moving to a new CPU architecture and these increases are present from the start but what we generally miss is that last %20 of optimization that turns a good app into a great app. We're not there on the G5. It takes about a couple of years before your bread n butter apps are tuned and purring.
Exactly ! Just look at OS X today. Instead on doing it the Windws way ( slower for every upgrade ) , OSX is getting faster and faster.
Just look at preview. anyone in here remember preview in 10.2 ?
Exactly ! Just look at OS X today. Instead on doing it the Windws way ( slower for every upgrade ) , OSX is getting faster and faster.
Just look at preview. anyone in here remember preview in 10.2 ?
god yes. i run a 450 mhz G3 imac, so everything is basically a chore, and preview in 10.2 took forever. now its way faster. same with itunes, safari, etc etc. mac os x is getting faster and faster, even without processor or graphics card updates.
on the apple site, with the education discount, you can upgrade from the GeForce 5200 to the Radeon 9600xt on the powermac for $45 or the 9800xt for like $150 or so. to me, that seems like its a small enough difference for apple to make at least the 9600 standard. sure, the 9600 isn't the best, but its certainly not bad, from what i've heard and read. for me, graphics card isn't that important, but the 5200 is still a little outdated. (but hey, its better than my ATI rage 128 pro w/ 8 mb! oh god...)
god yes. i run a 450 mhz G3 imac, so everything is basically a chore, and preview in 10.2 took forever. now its way faster. same with itunes, safari, etc etc. mac os x is getting faster and faster, even without processor or graphics card updates.
I have the indigo iMac.
And the machine is still working, with my son and friends coming over for some serious multiplayer action. It does QuakeArene perfectly. Playing UrbanTerror or TrueCombat is awesome. The graphics is tuned way down, but no one seems to notice.
I believe Tiger will do the same, and as people are mentioning, OpenGL 2.0 may give us some nice surprises.
Are the NV GT cards like NV Geforce Ultra "Lite," or are they higher performing cards? I have not been paying attention to gaming cards. Only drooling over the Quadro FX 4400 PCI-E w/512MB DDR3. Ouch!!!
Are the NV GT cards like NV Geforce Ultra "Lite," or are they higher performing cards? I have not been paying attention to gaming cards. Only drooling over the Quadro FX 4400 PCI-E w/512MB DDR3. Ouch!!!
The GT versions of the 6800 architecture are very impressive for the price.
I'd argue against an Ultra, generally, on the PC because the GT blows it out the water on bang for buck. Most of the performance for over a £100 quid less!!!
The cards offer amazing performance...and more than acceptance Doom 3 performance in max or high quality settings...leaving you wondering...why bother with the extra expense of the Ultra?
Still, on the Mac? Not as much choice. I'd love to see a 6600 GT in the low end Mac. The 6800 Gt in the Mid range and the ultra in the top end PowerMac.
A 6600 Gt card would be ideal in the top end iMac. A £120 card as opposed to the 'stand out performance' of the ul-pantra 5200 fx mx thing...
The 6600 GT, another variant with less vertix doo-dahs (look at tables at Guru3D links...) will give you 50 frames per second at 1200x1024 with high quality on. Check out the Doom 3 benches and you'll see the 6600 GT blow ATI's x600 card right out the water, tear its face off and leave it dying on the floor...
Apparently IBM is not using SSDOI, but using strained silicon(re:NMOS transistors use nitride strain) similar to Intel's approach and using SOI. Hopefully, they are near production using SSDOI.
Interesting quote #1"Strained Silicon Directly on Insulator (SSDOI), in which a Silicon-Germanium (SiGe) layer is used to strain the SOI layer, and then removed, leaving a strained silicon layer on the buried oxide. This technique strains the NMOS and PMOS transistors simultaneously."
Interesting quote #2," "They have been reported to be qualifying low-k during the last few months, and we are expecting to see low-k product soon..." laptops maybe?
Interesting quote #3," If low-k is not needed for the Apple's performance specifications, it is sensible for IBM to stick with FSG", commented James." maybe not?
I truely don't have a clue of what most of that adds up to as far as getting higher yields out of current processors, but it appears to a non CPU person like it's really good news. less that 1% of defects using SSDOI seems promising. But again I really have no idea if that was the area of the processor where they were having trouble. But, if it is this could be the key for them to increase performance, yields, and speed, Not to mention it could be what they needed to crack to get to 3GHz+, and also have a successful transition to 65nm.
Of course that's all just wishful thinking, but it sure sounds nice.
Comments
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Emig,
I'm doubtful that a G5 dual 2 gig with 512 meg can take a raid, 3.5 gig, 2 gig of ram machine.
On Photoshop? 3D?
The keys thing? Scratches head. I know PPC does well on that. Altivec and all. But PS and 3D?
Post some benches for the specced machines and I'll cry uncle.
LBB ... just want you to know I don't have any beef with you... I think you're pretty cool.
First of all LBB... a 3500+ isn't 3.5ghz.... its 2.2ghz.
2nd of all, all I can find is a 512k l2 cache model in 3500+. My 3400+ (which is 2.4ghz has 1mb l2 cache).
3rd of all... the Powermac has 2 processors.
4th of all, the Powermac has a faster FSB.
5th of all raid doesn't mean anything when it comes to cpu computations.
6th of all ram only goes so far when benchmarking cpus.
7th of all the g5 is expandable to 16gigs of ram... not 3-4 in windows or 6-8 in linux.
The PC has things going for it: RAID, Graphics Card, up to PC4000 RAM (rare)... etc.
This dual 2.0 will take that machine. I posted what I scored in dnetc. I offered anyone to run dnetc against my mac. I offer anyone to run cinebench against my dual 2.0 mac. I will lose the GL score though. Now this is against a 3500+... I have a 3400+ and am well aware of what a 3500+ can pull off. As far as computational power.... my mac has the 3400 and 3500 because I have 2 processors
As for Onlooker. I think he's right to blow his top at Apple's 'odd' stance in not providing 3D cards yet claiming to be a 'pro' customer provider via their PowerMacs.
You bashed Apple for reasons. Did you feel right to do so?
Apple are doing many great things. But they are flawed. They could do better.
It's Onlooker's, Matsu's or Lemon Bon Bon's democratic right to 'bash', whinge or argue for improvement.
You guys do have the right to bash on apple... and bash on any company out there. I agree. I bash on them too. Did I feel the right to bash on apple? Of course I did... but I kept myself open minded in doing so. I also didn't make it a 100% bash. I realized positive things apple had going for them. Personally I think a lot of the bashing comes from frustraction of mac users. They want to brag to their friends that their mac is the fastest thing since sliced bread so they can justify the price easily to their pc friends. I've been there. But now I'm on both sides of the fence. I have this really nice water cooled pc next to me and I only use it for games. Why? Because I can do things quicker and more efficient on my dual g5. Also have the stability. Sorry to get off topic...
Only problem with you guys bashing here is, it doesn't solve anything. Bash to apple public relations. Bash on the apple discussion boards. Apple employees are much more likey to browse those boards than here.
When the g5s were first released this year I was pretty disappointed. I had been waiting since January and wasn't happy with dual 2.0 being mid line. I also wasn't (am not) happy with the graphics cards they put in there. I understand why they didn't put in PCI-E though. I also have mixed feelings about the water cooling system they have going on. I'm also PISSED about them moving shipping dates back. I'm also disappointed in 1 optical drive. I'm also curious why they didn't bump the ram from pc 3200 to 3500.
So yah I can do my share of apple bashing too. I have more things I have said in the passed but you get the point. But I can also do this...
apple has mastered the dual processor production, apple has the fastest FSB, apple has a very silent system, apple has a low power consumption system most of the time, apple has a sexy looking system (inside and out), apple has a lot of expandability for ram, apple has pci-x, apple has a competitive processor, apple has etc etc etc.
All I was trying to get onlooker to do is quit saying that the Powermac isn't a professional machine. He's insane if he thinks otherwise. I'm starting to think he hasn't even used one yet in a work environment. Thats why I consider him a troll on these forums.
Onlooker does nothing BUT bash on apple. I haven't seem him give one freakin compliment all year long.
Pro graphic cards.
A true workstation range.
A single cpu tower range under the 'dual cpu pro' Macs.
An iMac that costs 0 with a 9800 pro and 512 megs of ram.
A true 'cheap' headless Mac that replaces of complements the eMac. PC land can do Shuttle. Why can't Apple mini-tower? They should.
Apple don't offer enough choice.
They do skimp sometimes. Eg on ram and gpus on high end PowerMacs or iMacs. Low end. Okay. But mid-to high end? Gpus HAVE got to get better!
Have got to work on the cpu situation. They're 'nearly there'. (Hopefully Antares 970MP will finally deliver the Wintel Killer.)
Still need more productivity software aka office alternative.
People often argue Apple shouldn't or couldn't because Apple doesn't currently offer it.
That's fine.
I'm arguing that Apple could offer things that many smaller companies offer.
26% of Maya sales go to Mac. So why no Pro Card?
647% agreed bud. Apple needs a better GPU!! I agree with you so much on that one. That is my main beef with apple. They have been stuck on the same graphic cards for over 2 years. Let it go apple.
A tower starting at 0? Insane. I'm not expecting one at . But...BUT(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), reason prevail...at least offer single cpu models that go from -5?
There is room for a headless/mini-tower in that range. Not art-museum peices but real solutions that can are attractive aka iMac 3 but not 'up my ar*e' solutions like iMac or Cube. Offer something a little plainer but stylish. Something PC land, something we can relate to.
There is a large ground swell of Mac support for a headless machine cheaper than the ridiculous 0 price start.
Apple thought there wasn't room for a machine 'tween iMac and PowerMac. ie cube. They were wrong. There wasn't room for an overpriced machine between the iMac and PowerMac.
With Apple...the devil is in the detail. Glaringly simple details.
Like why not offer 512 megs of ram when it's not much more expensive than 256? Nothing. for a better graphics card as opposed to the $16 piece of crap in the iMac 3?
Yeesh, for a little bit more...Apple could offer us so much more...I don't get why the 'BMW' of computers treats us so...
Lemon Bon Bon
LBB... I agree, apple needs another machine. I have a feeling its going to happen very soon. The cube was the biggest failure I have ever seen... why? Because of a stupid design. I mean it was a cool design... but for sales it was stupid. Very limited. Maybe apple should hold back a little on engineering and just get something out that would run OS X for 600-1000 that is a single proc mid-tower. Mini g5 would be cool! That could really spark an interest in this platform again. But make it single proc.
Anyways, I hope this clears some things up. To recap I'll bench my g5 against a 3400+ or a 3500+... I'll lose single proc by a little... but if all features are used the dual proc will win.
Why even test single proc? Thats like 66% of a powermac.
Why even test single proc? Thats like 66% of a powermac.
Heh. I like that.
Thanks for the detailed and enthusiastic post to my points.
Much appreciated.
Lemon Bon Bon
Onlooker does nothing BUT bash on apple. I haven't seem him give one freakin compliment all year long.
That's not true. I've always said that Apples software is second to none. I just think their current hardware is seriously lacking.
PCI-E makes sense too, if the GPUs are there. Shouldn't cost more that AGP 8X, and it's a natural fit for what Apple proposes to do with "core" technologies in Tiger.
I don't think you'll see two slots though, One PCI-E and the rest PCI-X/133/66/whatever the legacy needs dictate
Maybe more RAM capacity in the base model.
That's what they will do.
What they should do is take a look at their lineup. Recognize that they sell a single G4 tower for 1299 and replace that machine with a single G5 tower for the same price.
Originally posted by Matsu
I think the next rev will hold speeds from 2-3Ghz in even 500Mhz steps, all dual.
PCI-E makes sense too, if the GPUs are there. Shouldn't cost more that AGP 8X, and it's a natural fit for what Apple proposes to do with "core" technologies in Tiger.
I don't think you'll see two slots though, One PCI-E and the rest PCI-X/133/66/whatever the legacy needs dictate
Maybe more RAM capacity in the base model.
That's what they will do.
What they should do is take a look at their lineup. Recognize that they sell a single G4 tower for 1299 and replace that machine with a single G5 tower for the same price.
That could work... I know a lot of people that would buy a tower like that for around that price. Personally I'd buy an iMac if it didn't have that screen... so take that same setup and ditch the screen and drop about 300-400 bucks
mmmm 1.6 g5 for 999. *shrugs*
That could work... I know a lot of people that would buy a tower like that for around that price. Personally I'd buy an iMac if it didn't have that screen... so take that same setup and ditch the screen and drop about 300-400 bucks
mmmm 1.6 g5 for 999. *shrugs*
I can't see Apple's problem with this.
Same for Matsu's comment. Can't Apple just replace the single G4 tower with a single G5 tower?
iMac buyers will buy iMacs.
Tower buyers will buy towers. More tower people will buy Apple towers if they didn't cost as much as £1400.
Then they (Apple) wheel out Freddy Anderson to defend sales of 200K. ie as if the days of high tower sales are over. Pass me the crack-pipe. Look at Dell, HP, Sony, IBM tower sales.
If Apple offered a fuller range of towers ie singles to complement their dual range then tower sales would go up 50-100% no bother.
Tower is what alot of Linux and PC and Tower buyers from the dark side understand. It's also what alot of Apple buyers understand and want.
I'd like to see a tower range from £695-£1295.
From 1.6 - 2.5 G5.
Tower G5 vs iMac G5.
Mano u Mano.
I'm confident which would win in sales.
Either way, Apple would win. They'd open up more of an Apple market to would be switchers.
Having to wait until £1400 before you can get a gaming Mac or a configurable Mac (in the real sense of the word) is quite absurd.
I hope the transition to dual core is swift. I hope AMD doesn't beat IBM to it. It would be really strange for THE maker of dual core cpus to lag behind AMD in the transition to dual core.
Are we looking at WWDC 2005 for Antares?
Or could a break neck introduction put the problems of the 970fx behind us?
A bump on the towers to 2.8? About worth it unless the bump comes much sooner than the 9 month cycle. The nine month update cycle puts us...at...next March? Might as well be Antares? Shipping June...heh...
Another 9 month wait for the Lemon, sigh...
Lemon Bon Bon
...and I'll want PCI-Express gaddammit. And the latest ram. And a graphics card with 512 megs on it! And SLI as a motherboard option.
And...dammit, a gig of ram for a £2100 machine.
...and a discount offer if I buy an Alu ie bundle. And I want damn fries with that too...to go...
Originally posted by Matsu
PCI-E makes sense too, if the GPUs are there.
The GPUs are there.
And Apple will give us the GeForce PCX 5300 which "delivers standout gaming experience"
My pessimistic prediction so I'm not disappointed...
Geforce 5300fx... x600xt... x800xt... 6850... OOPS NO CHANGE!!! *shrugs*
Watch it happen too
THE amazing 6600 GT, which, for the money, is a stunning performer and just the kind of card Apple SHOULD be putting in the top end iMac and low-mid PowerMacs.
IT thrapes Doom 3 in 1200x1000 with effects on. And just about playable in 1600x1200!
Turn the effects off and the frame rates climb.
It's going to be about $200 ie £120-ish. That is amazing.
I'd happily pay the extra £100 to have that card in a mid-top end iMac or a low-end PowerMac.
Apple. Wake up.
Stop peddling crap, CRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP GPUS on us.
I'd love the option to have the 6800 GT card in a mid-range PowerMac. The GT6800 is a stunning performer at a more reasonable price.
Choice. A wonderful thing...especially when you say SLI in the same breath...
Lemon Bon Bon
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by hmurchison
The Powermacs are most definitely Workstations.
The problem is people over the years have always expected an immediate speed increase when moving to a new CPU architecture and these increases are present from the start but what we generally miss is that last %20 of optimization that turns a good app into a great app. We're not there on the G5. It takes about a couple of years before your bread n butter apps are tuned and purring.
Exactly ! Just look at OS X today. Instead on doing it the Windws way ( slower for every upgrade ) , OSX is getting faster and faster.
Just look at preview. anyone in here remember preview in 10.2 ?
Zon
Exactly ! Just look at OS X today. Instead on doing it the Windws way ( slower for every upgrade ) , OSX is getting faster and faster.
Just look at preview. anyone in here remember preview in 10.2 ?
god yes. i run a 450 mhz G3 imac, so everything is basically a chore, and preview in 10.2 took forever. now its way faster. same with itunes, safari, etc etc. mac os x is getting faster and faster, even without processor or graphics card updates.
on the apple site, with the education discount, you can upgrade from the GeForce 5200 to the Radeon 9600xt on the powermac for $45 or the 9800xt for like $150 or so. to me, that seems like its a small enough difference for apple to make at least the 9600 standard. sure, the 9600 isn't the best, but its certainly not bad, from what i've heard and read. for me, graphics card isn't that important, but the 5200 is still a little outdated. (but hey, its better than my ATI rage 128 pro w/ 8 mb! oh god...)
Originally posted by exhibit_13
god yes. i run a 450 mhz G3 imac, so everything is basically a chore, and preview in 10.2 took forever. now its way faster. same with itunes, safari, etc etc. mac os x is getting faster and faster, even without processor or graphics card updates.
I have the indigo iMac.
And the machine is still working, with my son and friends coming over for some serious multiplayer action. It does QuakeArene perfectly. Playing UrbanTerror or TrueCombat is awesome. The graphics is tuned way down, but no one seems to notice.
I believe Tiger will do the same, and as people are mentioning, OpenGL 2.0 may give us some nice surprises.
Zon
Are the NV GT cards like NV Geforce Ultra "Lite," or are they higher performing cards? I have not been paying attention to gaming cards. Only drooling over the Quadro FX 4400 PCI-E w/512MB DDR3. Ouch!!!
Go to the link and find out.
Go to www.firingsquad.com and get upto date.
The GT versions of the 6800 architecture are very impressive for the price.
I'd argue against an Ultra, generally, on the PC because the GT blows it out the water on bang for buck. Most of the performance for over a £100 quid less!!!
The cards offer amazing performance...and more than acceptance Doom 3 performance in max or high quality settings...leaving you wondering...why bother with the extra expense of the Ultra?
Still, on the Mac? Not as much choice. I'd love to see a 6600 GT in the low end Mac. The 6800 Gt in the Mid range and the ultra in the top end PowerMac.
A 6600 Gt card would be ideal in the top end iMac. A £120 card as opposed to the 'stand out performance' of the ul-pantra 5200 fx mx thing...
The 6600 GT, another variant with less vertix doo-dahs (look at tables at Guru3D links...) will give you 50 frames per second at 1200x1024 with high quality on. Check out the Doom 3 benches and you'll see the 6600 GT blow ATI's x600 card right out the water, tear its face off and leave it dying on the floor...
SLI either a 6600Gt or a 6800 GT. And...well...
Gasp?
Lemon Bon Bon
Authorative and thorough.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by zenarcade
Just look at preview. anyone in here remember preview in 10.2 ?
Zon
Anyone remember preview in 10.1? I have used it for some time in a Powerbook G3... aieeee!
Found this link on MacSurfer to an article about the 970FX
Chipworks Discovers IBM Strain at 90nm, Delay in Low-k
Apparently IBM is not using SSDOI, but using strained silicon(re:NMOS transistors use nitride strain) similar to Intel's approach and using SOI. Hopefully, they are near production using SSDOI.
Interesting quote #1"Strained Silicon Directly on Insulator (SSDOI), in which a Silicon-Germanium (SiGe) layer is used to strain the SOI layer, and then removed, leaving a strained silicon layer on the buried oxide. This technique strains the NMOS and PMOS transistors simultaneously."
Interesting quote #2," "They have been reported to be qualifying low-k during the last few months, and we are expecting to see low-k product soon..." laptops maybe?
Interesting quote #3," If low-k is not needed for the Apple's performance specifications, it is sensible for IBM to stick with FSG", commented James." maybe not?
Of course that's all just wishful thinking, but it sure sounds nice.
iDunno