Dual 1.25 vs Dell 3 Ghz

trailmaster308

Very interesting article on hyperthreading on the 3ghz single vs. the Dual 1.25. Also, towards the end of the article it was interesting reading about the Nordic countries and how they prefer/request/demand quiet machines.



<a href="http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm</a>;

browncow

pathetic...

leonis

We all expect this.



But gotta mention that.......After Effects never uses over 55% of each CPU usage on Dual systems. In other words it's like a 1.25Ghz machine fighting against the 3.06 Ghz machine



When using Combustion as a test mark results shouldn't be this bad even it's still slower than the PC. Combustion uses 98% of each CPU's power on dual machine



All in all. Steve Jobs really needs to stop his hype and lies about their products' performance.



Apple's current Ultra-Lame Hardware Offering (tm) is an undeniable truth.

progmac

I usually offer a little positivity toward the mac at this time, but I have none to offer. The final paragraph is quite interesting and very valid, and it goes like this:



<strong> [quote]

Of course, Mac stalwarts will cling to the notion that Mac OS X is so much better and easier to use than Windows XP, but if you?re spending all day inside After Effects, which operating system you?re using makes little difference. What does make a huge difference is if you have to sit and wait for rendering any longer than necessary. And, according to our benchmarks here, if you have an After Effects composite that needs, say, two hours to render on the Mac, it?ll take you about an hour and 10 minutes on this PC. So, in addition to the extra $1000 you must pay for the Mac, it will cost you plenty of time as well, especially while using After Effects. Time is money. After looking at these startling benchmark results, we have to gaze over at our beautifully-designed Macs and ask, ?Is it worth it??<hr></blockquote></strong>

michael grey

[quote]Originally posted by Leonis:

<strong>



All in all. Steve Jobs really needs to stop his hype and lies about their products' performance.</strong><hr></blockquote>



Yeah! It's about time Jobs stopped talking up how great Macs are and started telling everyone how much they suck! That would be much better!

jll

[quote]Originally posted by Leonis:

<strong>All in all. Steve Jobs really needs to stop his hype and lies about their products' performance.</strong><hr></blockquote>



What lies? He hasn't demoed a Power Mac for ages.

jll

[quote]Originally posted by progmac:

<strong>I usually offer a little positivity toward the mac at this time, but I have none to offer. The final paragraph is quite interesting and very valid, and it goes like this:



[qb] </strong>[/QB]<hr></blockquote>



The problem is just that the Mac does not cost $1,000 more than the Dell - he is comparing the base price of the Dell to the BTO config of the Power Mac.



A standard 2x1.25GHz G4 with 1GB RAM is $3,339.



A Dell with 1 GB RAM, 120 GB HD and FireWire is $3,510.

matsu

Slaughtered again. An by a wider margin than ever! All for a 1000 dollars less... And the scary part is that in 3 months a comparable 3Ghz PC will cost another 25-33% less while Apple desperately tries to bundle an over-priced monitor or some software everyone working in the business already owns.



Don't mind me, I'm just a troll

rogue27

After Effects probably only uses 55% of each processor in a dual 1.25Ghz PowerMac because the bus doesn't let data get to the processor fast enough for it to do any more than that.



Sure, in January we'll have faster chips on a 200Mhz bus, and slightly larger caches, but there will still be a lot of wasted cpu cycles due to a bus bottleneck, but hopefully not as much. Maybe we'll get to 65% usage on a dual processor machine.

jll

[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

<strong>Slaughtered again. An by a wider margin than ever! All for a 1000 dollars less... And the scary part is that in 3 months a comparable 3Ghz PC will cost another 25-33% less while Apple desperately tries to bundle an over-priced monitor or some software everyone working in the business already owns.



Don't mind me, I'm just a troll </strong><hr></blockquote>



Yes you are, because the Dell he tested is not $1,000 cheaper than the Mac.

jll

[quote]Originally posted by rogue27:

<strong>After Effects probably only uses 55% of each processor in a dual 1.25Ghz PowerMac because the bus doesn't let data get to the processor fast enough for it to do any more than that.</strong><hr></blockquote>



If it's because of the bus, then why can Cumbustion and Cleaner utilize the processors better?



[ 11-14-2002: Message edited by: JLL ]</p>

satchmo

And the solution for the Mac to be competitive is?...



Many may choose a Mac over a PC if both the performance and pricing gap weren't so great.

I don't think Apple has any intention on the pricing issue, but perhaps if some of these rumours of IBM equipped chips actually make into the towers by MWSF, there may be hope yet.



One other option...start putting Intel chips in Macs.

However, I'd rather just accept the fact that we're forever bound to pay more for less. speed.

stoo

Don't worry, the Mac performance hype machine will swing (back) into overdrive when the 970 arrives.

patchouli

The price they quoted on this site is indeed correct (AND it includes a 3 year ONSITE next day service warranty). This is the configuration they used for those tests (imagine the scores had they used the ATI 128MB 9700?):



$2,942.00



Dell Precision™ Workstation 350 Minitower

3.06GHz, Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor, 512K / 533 Front Side Bus

1GB PC1066 RDRAM®

Intel® Pro/1000 MT Gigabit Ethernet

ATI, FIRE GL™ E1, 64MB, 2 VGA or 1 VGA and 1 DVI

120GB ATA-100 IDE, 1 inch (7200 rpm) with 8MB DataBurst Cache™

Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional, SP1

V.92 PCI Data/Fax Controllerless Modem

16X DVD

48X CDRW

1394 Controller Card

3Yr Parts + Onsite Labor (Next Business Day)

mrmister

Wow. makes me glad I am a laptop only user, where Apple is better able to compete.



There's no excuse, but I wouldn't say that Jobs has been "lieing"...he no longer demos PowerMacs killing Windows boxes, since they wouldn't, and until the PPC970 I doubt things will change much.



It's a hard time.

eman

This definately isn't a surprise. And if that Dell really is so much less than the PM that's really sad. Another example of why Apple's gotta low the prices of the high end tower.

razzfazz

EDIT: Never mind, should read more closely.



[ 11-14-2002: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</p>

jll

[quote]Originally posted by Patchouli:

<strong>The price they quoted on this site is indeed correct (AND it includes a 3 year ONSITE next day service warranty). This is the configuration they used for those tests (imagine the scores had they used the ATI 128MB 9700?):



$2,942.00



Dell Precision™ Workstation 350 Minitower

3.06GHz, Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor, 512K / 533 Front Side Bus

1GB PC1066 RDRAM®

Intel® Pro/1000 MT Gigabit Ethernet

ATI, FIRE GL™ E1, 64MB, 2 VGA or 1 VGA and 1 DVI

120GB ATA-100 IDE, 1 inch (7200 rpm) with 8MB DataBurst Cache™

Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional, SP1

V.92 PCI Data/Fax Controllerless Modem

16X DVD

48X CDRW

1394 Controller Card

3Yr Parts + Onsite Labor (Next Business Day)</strong><hr></blockquote>



Use 2 RIMMS instead of 4 and the price is $300 more.



Remove the SuperDrive from the Power Mac and take the Radeon, the price is $3,139

dmgeist

Its quality, not quantity



Nobody can tell a mac user why they like Macs, and why they Hate Windows they just do. Its a very personal experience. Its not all the hardware, I think its about

15-20% the hardware. More-so if you perfer laptops. The overwellming tide is the interface. I used windows for three years and after I mastered windows there was something wrong. It was'nt the system it was the OS.



Hi my name is Dmgeist, and I'm a Mac User! :cool:



[ 11-14-2002: Message edited by: dmgeist ]</p>

leonis

Since the SlowSilver(tm) period many Power Mac towers have had tons of hardware defects. Can we say they are in good quality??

patchouli

Configure it any way you want, at the end of the day the Dell gives more features and bang for the buck (if you use XP). These are the configs that they used and they are talking price versus performance. To nit-pick that is just ridiculous. Can you choose 4 Dimms at the Apple store? Can you get just the fastest DVD and CDRW drives? On the Dell the options are there to configure it anyway you want. Besides, I am much more impressed with separate 16X DVD and 48X CDR drives than a SuperDrive. Also, the new Dell's are VERY quiet. From the fans to the HDs which are enclosed in shrouds. Even IF the prices WERE the same, the performance difference is still the same which shows how unjustified Apple's pricing is (for their Desktops). And NO, Apple does NOT use better parts in their systems. Better plastics and cases maybe? That's up to the individual.



Also, that price above INCLUDES the infamous Dell 3 year ONSITE Next Day Service Warranty. You'd have to add $349 for Apple's support which doesn't even come close.



[ 11-14-2002: Message edited by: Patchouli ]</p>