I guess the real question I wanted to ask is, to what extent does it seem that Apple will build these technologies such that they are readily available to 3rd party devs in a meaningful way. If devs can tap those resources, would it then be a case where much of the consumer/pro distinction is nullified by the technologies built into the OS, so long as a hardware set meets Apple's minimum requirements, and the dev has writtent their software to take advantage, you would be assured of maximum exploitation of installed hardware? iDunno, just asking...
The Core technologies are provided specifically for 3rd party developers. That is the reason Apple creates them. How big an impact they have on a piece of software depends on what the developer was using before (if anything), and to what extent the developer is willing to change his code for the Mac to take advantage of what Apple provides on the Mac and only the Mac.
The Core technologies are provided specifically for 3rd party developers. That is the reason Apple creates them. How big an impact they have on a piece of software depends on what the developer was using before (if anything), and to what extent the developer is willing to change his code for the Mac to take advantage of what Apple provides on the Mac and only the Mac.
Exactly,
The way it stands now, CoreImage and CoreVideo are going to be used in a few iLife apps and Pro apple apps. Motion is the #1 example right now. If you're going to be doing intense projects in Motion your'e going to see a performance hit. I'm guessing that iPhoto and iMovie will also take advantage when tiger comes out... Also might see a slight performance hit with these as well.
Adobe will hopefully incorporate these into PS when its said and done. Besides those apps I don't think you'll see a big performance flop if some third party app that has them is released.
Adobe will hopefully incorporate these into PS when its said and done.
I am afraid that Adobe is never going to do that. I think they try to keep their code as much as portable, and this comes into direct conflict with technologies like Core Image. CI/CV will certainly be BIG for other developers, mostly small, that don't have the resources to invest in programming directly for the graphics chip.
This had been discussed in this loooong thread some time ago. Look also for links in there as well as for onlooker's resume on page 6 (near the end).
On a cursory inspection the only benchmark I see referenced is the Cinebench. One benchmark does not an end of story make. Performance is a fragile thing, and there are many ways to write "portable" code that heavily favours one platform over the other. Even the "G5 optimized" version does not necessarily go about things the way PowerPC software really should, it just means they've optimized the code that implements things done the x86-way. How much of a difference can this make? Well, I've seen order-of-magnitude examples. I'm not saying that this is the case here, just that you should be wary about drawing your conclusions based on a single benchmark program... unless your objective is only to use the benchmark software (e.g. the Cinema 4D engine in this case).
That said there are probably some performance issues in Apple's OpenGL pipeline. If there weren't we wouldn't see "improved OpenGL performance" in virtually every OS release. The efficiency of the drivers is also in question, both because of the kinds of things I hint at in the previous paragraph, as well as the general observation that ATI & nVidia will put most of their best people on the drivers for the largest market and likely make do with simple ports to the Mac. I know one of the guys on the ATI Mac driver team though, and they have definitely improved from the days of having co-op students writing their drivers. Time to market and the sheer complexity of drivers works against them, however.
I am afraid that Adobe is never going to do that. I think they try to keep their code as much as portable, and this comes into direct conflict with technologies like Core Image. CI/CV will certainly be BIG for other developers, mostly small, that don't have the resources to invest in programming directly for the graphics chip.
On the other hand, PS does have a good plug-in architecture so they might be able to implement particular functionality in terms of CoreImage for the Mac. The existing implementation would serve the PC and pre-Tiger Macs.
After all this time and SO MUCH public commentary about
Apple's use of inferior graphics cards, I can't help but wonder if this has more to do with licensee preference going to those who sell the most???
Otherwise, we must assume that Apple is either blind or so greedy that they don't give a rats a$$ about their users needs.
Its seems obvious that they deliberately cripple perfectly good configurations right from the starting gate
with the cheapest P.O.S. GPU cards they can get in bulk.
The iMac G5 is wonderful, but they lost my sale with a 64MB
permanent GPU card.
The Mac mini is wonderful, but they lost my sale with a 32MB GPU
They could have sold many more systems to many more users if
they had simply made better cards available in BTO systems.
How much longer will they continue to insult our intelligence?
Someone needs to kick some serious butt in Apple's hardware configuration department
and put an end to this ridiculous lack of quality.
The best sales force Apple Computer has is their loyal user base,
yet they continue to ignore our feedback.
WTF!
You took the words out of my mouth. I'm a PC user (just built my own PC this year) and I'm looking to sell, and make the switch by next septemeber. My biggest reservation is that for paying $2400 cdn for my imac config I speced out, I'm only getting a vanilla 64 meg video card, that costs $20 when bought in bulk. I don't mind having the option to have this card, but I detest that their is no option to upgrade it, meaning I'm stuck with it. I wouldn't even mind if they stuck the same option in their current powerbook setup in the eMac or iMac, 64 meg, upgradable to a 128meg 9700. I guess I just dislike Apple telling me what I can and can't use their computers for. Hopefully buy next september, either the eMac will have gotten a new GPU and a G5, or the iMac will have gotten a new GPU and a speed bump. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
On a cursory inspection the only benchmark I see referenced is the Cinebench. One benchmark does not an end of story make. Performance is a fragile thing, and there are many ways to write "portable" code that heavily favours one platform over the other.
I am upset at the amount of misinformation in this thread regarding PC's people have meantioned. I will restrict my comments to how people have misinformed others about PC's. Please note, this isn't a Windows vs Mac arguement, so please do not view it as such.
1. The G5 Powermac is a Pro computer, if you are going to compare it to an AMD chip, please compare it to a Pro chip, and not a consumer chip. The FX-53 or Opertron 240's are great Pro chips's. There is a good reason why your 3400+ isn't up to par with your G5, it's a consumer chip.
2. Windows computers can act perfectly fine if connected directly to the internet. 75% of most Windows Problems are related to user error. If a user is stupid enough to send their credit card information to some african in nigeria they deserve what they get. On that note, so do people who download software with out reading the release notes and install it. I have set up countless systems that are in use day in and day out, that have no virus or spyware issues, and haven't needed any maintence in over a year, which was one they were deployed, and these systems are 700mhz p3's on crap ram, running windows xp. They work fine. If you not a stupid user you don't have bad things happen. It's like a car don't or abuse it do stupid things, and make sure and maintain it, and your all set.
3. Apple's lack of hardware is due to many things. They choose to not use PCI Express and went for PCI-X. Bad move with the entire PC user base is going to Express. Espically if you want more add on's. Althought I enjoy Apple's moving away from legacy technology, like PS2 ports, Serial, ect.. they made it harder for themselves with the ADC, and PCI-X
Editing, forgot to address something....
4. You don't need water cooling to attain highend preformance there are people hitting 2.5ghz on some overclocks on air. And this doesn't nessacerily mean loud noise either. So when people say PC's will have to have water cooling to do that, it's just not true.
They choose to not use PCI Express and went for PCI-X. Bad move with the entire PC user base is going to Express. Espically if you want more add on's. Althought I enjoy Apple's moving away from legacy technology, like PS2 ports, Serial, ect.. they made it harder for themselves with the ADC, and PCI-X
This is incorrect -- Apple did not choose PCI-X instead of PCI Express. PCI-X is an extension to PCI, whereas PCI Express is a replacement for it. PCI-E is very new, and only starting to penetrate the PC market. Apple will adopt it when the time is right. Until then PCI-X is a fairly inexpensive way to get more mileage from the legacy PCI bus.
I work for a Help Desk that supports around 120,000 users. I provide phone and in person tech support for those users. On average I would estimate 75% of the problem's I have seen are user error, I'm sorry I should of made it more clear. In the past week out of maybe 100 people I've helped, 2 have been hardware issues, that span from a faulty chipset that was put on a model of Dell Laptops. Outside of that, it's the user's are stupid.
As to PCI Express and PCI-X, I was pointing out that if you want more high end expansion cards, and things of that nature, you should support the more mainstream technology. If I remember right, Apple dropped the ball on CD Burners, but they were quick with Firewire. I personally haven't seen anything come out for PCI-X, infact the large majority of chipsets don't even support it. Granted I may be wrong I haven't been following PCI-X, but it seems more of a gimmick.
Also, as to pulling a something out of my ass, I am not trying to start any type of flame war. But some of the posts here, are just wrong. This post has been really well done so far, but if people are just going to bash windows, then you can't have a constructive arguement. Apple users get upset when salesmen tell lies about Apple, well why don't you care if you tell lies about PCs.
Also, as to pulling a something out of my ass, I am not trying to start any type of flame war. But some of the posts here, are just wrong. This post has been really well done so far, but if people are just going to bash windows, then you can't have a constructive arguement. Apple users get upset when salesmen tell lies about Apple, well why don't you care if you tell lies about PCs.
What lies are you referring to?
PCI-Express and PCI-X shouldn't even be in the same conversation. They are two different animals.
PCI-X is backwards compatible with a lot of cards. I'm using my PCI ATI 7000 in my Rev B Dual 2.0 g5. Works just fine. Like programmer said, PCI-X is more of an extension on PCI, it's like comparing AGP4x and AGP8x, you can put an AGP 4x card in an AGP8x slot, you just wont' get the full speed benefits.
As to apple not picking up PCI-Express, Not one PC motherboard out there supported PCI-Express when the last PowerMac Rev's were updated. There weren't any PCI-Express cards at that time either. Everyone knew about it, but it wasn't really a public standard yet.
Apple will release their next machine's as PCI-Express... It was a timing thing and nothing less.
Your post is fine and not flame warish. I agree that most problems are "pilot error" but then again there are a lot of malitious stuff out there that makes it extremely easy to screw your system up.
As for PCI-X ...your are so wrong here it's not even worth debating really. PCI-X has been around years and right now it's the only thing you can use for fast I/O cards for networking and digital video. PCI Express will usurp it someday but the "kinks" will have to be ironed out first. Apple will likely move there when the time is right.
When I said "lies" it was probably a bad choice of words, but it was refereing to the post that claimed a Windows computer can't be connected to the internet and stay secure, that is just false. Also to where the one person was comparing a G5 to a 3400+ that was a very bad comparison, wasn't really a lie, but a bad comparison. I don't care what platform you like ,atleast be some what realistic about what you are saying.
My point about PCI-X, is that how many people use PCI-X cards? Granted it is backwards compatible, thats great, but in all reality there are very few cards on the market that would use it. There are more 64 bit PCI cards then PCI-X, my point was that I see it as more of a gimmick to sales, then a real solution for users. Just doing a quick search on google, I didn't really run across many products for PCI-X. Personally, I would of rather had seen 64 bit PCI.
As to my original posting about lack of PCI Express, I do admit that I neglected to remember that it wasn't out in the last PowerMac Rev, however, PCI Express has been out to a reasonable extent for 3-5 months now, and Intel has moved full steam ahead on it, and AMD is finally getting there as well. I'm most critizing Apple on the lack of an upgrade, since the PM is supposed to be a top of the line box, with all the goodies, it should of been rev'd again already to support it.
Like Hmurchison said, Apple moved to PCI-X for the G5 long before PCI-Express was around so they could allow high-speed interconnects like the Apple Fibre-channel card, and also have backwards compatiblity for such things as High end Video and Audio cards that pro users who buy powermacs actually use! (Might help to think before posting huh?!) The use of PCI-X has nothing to do with not using PCI-E. There are now PC motherboards (mainly workstation class Opteron/Xeon) that have both PCI-E and PCI-X so obviously the two can interact and co-exist ok.
When I said "lies" it was probably a bad choice of words, but it was refereing to the post that claimed a Windows computer can't be connected to the internet and stay secure, that is just false. Also to where the one person was comparing a G5 to a 3400+ that was a very bad comparison, wasn't really a lie, but a bad comparison. I don't care what platform you like ,atleast be some what realistic about what you are saying.
My point about PCI-X, is that how many people use PCI-X cards? Granted it is backwards compatible, thats great, but in all reality there are very few cards on the market that would use it. There are more 64 bit PCI cards then PCI-X, my point was that I see it as more of a gimmick to sales, then a real solution for users. Just doing a quick search on google, I didn't really run across many products for PCI-X. Personally, I would of rather had seen 64 bit PCI.
As to my original posting about lack of PCI Express, I do admit that I neglected to remember that it wasn't out in the last PowerMac Rev, however, PCI Express has been out to a reasonable extent for 3-5 months now, and Intel has moved full steam ahead on it, and AMD is finally getting there as well. I'm most critizing Apple on the lack of an upgrade, since the PM is supposed to be a top of the line box, with all the goodies, it should of been rev'd again already to support it.
Actually it was me comparing the dual g5 to a 3400+. Which I have, I'm actually selling the machine to use my 3.6ghz p4 that was given to me.
I have ran benches against these machines (dual 2.0 g5 970fx REV extensively with a few different programs. The main one, and I trust this one, is DNETC. Also Cinebench. The dual g5 (on the dual processor test) takes the 3400+ hands down on both benches. Both of these benching programs have proved the pc's to usually be faster, which makes sense since they originated as x86 apps.
If you want the numbers I will GLADLY give them to you. Btw, the 3400+ i'm referring to is the one with 1mb cache.
So don't say its false when you don't know for a fact. I've blown PC fanatics away by running these benches. True a single 2.0 will lose to a 3400+ but when it's dual... the dual g5 is the faster system.
I'm most critizing Apple on the lack of an upgrade, since the PM is supposed to be a top of the line box, with all the goodies, it should of been rev'd again already to support it.
Apple does nothing by moving to PCI Express before their customers can use it. PC integrators must add in the latest whizbang stuff because basically they have no other way to differentiate themselves.
If I'm running a card that has to be stable I'm looking at staying PCI-X for at least another generation while PCI Express matures. There are always kinks to work out with new tech. PCI E will have some growing pains.
PCs are unfairly bashed here at appleinsider.com but that just goes with the territory.
I expect to see a new Mobo architecture from Apple next with more goodies. I'd like to see PCI Express but then again It's really software that dictates productivity.
Of course if you run a Single Processor against a Dual, the Dual will pwn it in some regards. A true test would be a Dual Opertron system vs. Dual G5 system. All I ask is that when you compare, be a bit more fair, comparing dual processor systems to single, in many cases doesn't reflect their own strenghts, and usually skew's the results.
Comments
Originally posted by Matsu
I guess the real question I wanted to ask is, to what extent does it seem that Apple will build these technologies such that they are readily available to 3rd party devs in a meaningful way. If devs can tap those resources, would it then be a case where much of the consumer/pro distinction is nullified by the technologies built into the OS, so long as a hardware set meets Apple's minimum requirements, and the dev has writtent their software to take advantage, you would be assured of maximum exploitation of installed hardware? iDunno, just asking...
The Core technologies are provided specifically for 3rd party developers. That is the reason Apple creates them. How big an impact they have on a piece of software depends on what the developer was using before (if anything), and to what extent the developer is willing to change his code for the Mac to take advantage of what Apple provides on the Mac and only the Mac.
Originally posted by Programmer
The Core technologies are provided specifically for 3rd party developers. That is the reason Apple creates them. How big an impact they have on a piece of software depends on what the developer was using before (if anything), and to what extent the developer is willing to change his code for the Mac to take advantage of what Apple provides on the Mac and only the Mac.
Exactly,
The way it stands now, CoreImage and CoreVideo are going to be used in a few iLife apps and Pro apple apps. Motion is the #1 example right now. If you're going to be doing intense projects in Motion your'e going to see a performance hit. I'm guessing that iPhoto and iMovie will also take advantage when tiger comes out... Also might see a slight performance hit with these as well.
Adobe will hopefully incorporate these into PS when its said and done. Besides those apps I don't think you'll see a big performance flop if some third party app that has them is released.
Originally posted by emig647
Adobe will hopefully incorporate these into PS when its said and done.
I am afraid that Adobe is never going to do that. I think they try to keep their code as much as portable, and this comes into direct conflict with technologies like Core Image. CI/CV will certainly be BIG for other developers, mostly small, that don't have the resources to invest in programming directly for the graphics chip.
Originally posted by PB
This had been discussed in this loooong thread some time ago. Look also for links in there as well as for onlooker's resume on page 6 (near the end).
On a cursory inspection the only benchmark I see referenced is the Cinebench. One benchmark does not an end of story make. Performance is a fragile thing, and there are many ways to write "portable" code that heavily favours one platform over the other. Even the "G5 optimized" version does not necessarily go about things the way PowerPC software really should, it just means they've optimized the code that implements things done the x86-way. How much of a difference can this make? Well, I've seen order-of-magnitude examples. I'm not saying that this is the case here, just that you should be wary about drawing your conclusions based on a single benchmark program... unless your objective is only to use the benchmark software (e.g. the Cinema 4D engine in this case).
That said there are probably some performance issues in Apple's OpenGL pipeline. If there weren't we wouldn't see "improved OpenGL performance" in virtually every OS release. The efficiency of the drivers is also in question, both because of the kinds of things I hint at in the previous paragraph, as well as the general observation that ATI & nVidia will put most of their best people on the drivers for the largest market and likely make do with simple ports to the Mac. I know one of the guys on the ATI Mac driver team though, and they have definitely improved from the days of having co-op students writing their drivers. Time to market and the sheer complexity of drivers works against them, however.
Originally posted by PB
I am afraid that Adobe is never going to do that. I think they try to keep their code as much as portable, and this comes into direct conflict with technologies like Core Image. CI/CV will certainly be BIG for other developers, mostly small, that don't have the resources to invest in programming directly for the graphics chip.
On the other hand, PS does have a good plug-in architecture so they might be able to implement particular functionality in terms of CoreImage for the Mac. The existing implementation would serve the PC and pre-Tiger Macs.
Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
After all this time and SO MUCH public commentary about
Apple's use of inferior graphics cards, I can't help but wonder if this has more to do with licensee preference going to those who sell the most???
Otherwise, we must assume that Apple is either blind or so greedy that they don't give a rats a$$ about their users needs.
Its seems obvious that they deliberately cripple perfectly good configurations right from the starting gate
with the cheapest P.O.S. GPU cards they can get in bulk.
The iMac G5 is wonderful, but they lost my sale with a 64MB
permanent GPU card.
The Mac mini is wonderful, but they lost my sale with a 32MB GPU
They could have sold many more systems to many more users if
they had simply made better cards available in BTO systems.
How much longer will they continue to insult our intelligence?
Someone needs to kick some serious butt in Apple's hardware configuration department
and put an end to this ridiculous lack of quality.
The best sales force Apple Computer has is their loyal user base,
yet they continue to ignore our feedback.
WTF!
You took the words out of my mouth. I'm a PC user (just built my own PC this year) and I'm looking to sell, and make the switch by next septemeber. My biggest reservation is that for paying $2400 cdn for my imac config I speced out, I'm only getting a vanilla 64 meg video card, that costs $20 when bought in bulk. I don't mind having the option to have this card, but I detest that their is no option to upgrade it, meaning I'm stuck with it. I wouldn't even mind if they stuck the same option in their current powerbook setup in the eMac or iMac, 64 meg, upgradable to a 128meg 9700. I guess I just dislike Apple telling me what I can and can't use their computers for. Hopefully buy next september, either the eMac will have gotten a new GPU and a G5, or the iMac will have gotten a new GPU and a speed bump. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Originally posted by Programmer
On a cursory inspection the only benchmark I see referenced is the Cinebench. One benchmark does not an end of story make. Performance is a fragile thing, and there are many ways to write "portable" code that heavily favours one platform over the other.
A GPU test explained here may be of interest too.
Originally posted by Programmer
Can you give me a link to these tests?
http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/cbogl.php
These were the ones I was talking about. They were posted here a long time ago.
1. The G5 Powermac is a Pro computer, if you are going to compare it to an AMD chip, please compare it to a Pro chip, and not a consumer chip. The FX-53 or Opertron 240's are great Pro chips's. There is a good reason why your 3400+ isn't up to par with your G5, it's a consumer chip.
2. Windows computers can act perfectly fine if connected directly to the internet. 75% of most Windows Problems are related to user error. If a user is stupid enough to send their credit card information to some african in nigeria they deserve what they get. On that note, so do people who download software with out reading the release notes and install it. I have set up countless systems that are in use day in and day out, that have no virus or spyware issues, and haven't needed any maintence in over a year, which was one they were deployed, and these systems are 700mhz p3's on crap ram, running windows xp. They work fine. If you not a stupid user you don't have bad things happen. It's like a car don't or abuse it do stupid things, and make sure and maintain it, and your all set.
3. Apple's lack of hardware is due to many things. They choose to not use PCI Express and went for PCI-X. Bad move with the entire PC user base is going to Express. Espically if you want more add on's. Althought I enjoy Apple's moving away from legacy technology, like PS2 ports, Serial, ect.. they made it harder for themselves with the ADC, and PCI-X
Editing, forgot to address something....
4. You don't need water cooling to attain highend preformance there are people hitting 2.5ghz on some overclocks on air. And this doesn't nessacerily mean loud noise either. So when people say PC's will have to have water cooling to do that, it's just not true.
Originally posted by scavanger
75% of most Windows Problems are related to user error.
Did it hurt when you pulled that statistic out of your ass?
Originally posted by scavanger
They choose to not use PCI Express and went for PCI-X. Bad move with the entire PC user base is going to Express. Espically if you want more add on's. Althought I enjoy Apple's moving away from legacy technology, like PS2 ports, Serial, ect.. they made it harder for themselves with the ADC, and PCI-X
This is incorrect -- Apple did not choose PCI-X instead of PCI Express. PCI-X is an extension to PCI, whereas PCI Express is a replacement for it. PCI-E is very new, and only starting to penetrate the PC market. Apple will adopt it when the time is right. Until then PCI-X is a fairly inexpensive way to get more mileage from the legacy PCI bus.
As to PCI Express and PCI-X, I was pointing out that if you want more high end expansion cards, and things of that nature, you should support the more mainstream technology. If I remember right, Apple dropped the ball on CD Burners, but they were quick with Firewire. I personally haven't seen anything come out for PCI-X, infact the large majority of chipsets don't even support it. Granted I may be wrong I haven't been following PCI-X, but it seems more of a gimmick.
Also, as to pulling a something out of my ass, I am not trying to start any type of flame war. But some of the posts here, are just wrong. This post has been really well done so far, but if people are just going to bash windows, then you can't have a constructive arguement. Apple users get upset when salesmen tell lies about Apple, well why don't you care if you tell lies about PCs.
Originally posted by scavanger
Also, as to pulling a something out of my ass, I am not trying to start any type of flame war. But some of the posts here, are just wrong. This post has been really well done so far, but if people are just going to bash windows, then you can't have a constructive arguement. Apple users get upset when salesmen tell lies about Apple, well why don't you care if you tell lies about PCs.
What lies are you referring to?
PCI-Express and PCI-X shouldn't even be in the same conversation. They are two different animals.
PCI-X is backwards compatible with a lot of cards. I'm using my PCI ATI 7000 in my Rev B Dual 2.0 g5. Works just fine. Like programmer said, PCI-X is more of an extension on PCI, it's like comparing AGP4x and AGP8x, you can put an AGP 4x card in an AGP8x slot, you just wont' get the full speed benefits.
As to apple not picking up PCI-Express, Not one PC motherboard out there supported PCI-Express when the last PowerMac Rev's were updated. There weren't any PCI-Express cards at that time either. Everyone knew about it, but it wasn't really a public standard yet.
Apple will release their next machine's as PCI-Express... It was a timing thing and nothing less.
Your post is fine and not flame warish. I agree that most problems are "pilot error" but then again there are a lot of malitious stuff out there that makes it extremely easy to screw your system up.
As for PCI-X ...your are so wrong here it's not even worth debating really. PCI-X has been around years and right now it's the only thing you can use for fast I/O cards for networking and digital video. PCI Express will usurp it someday but the "kinks" will have to be ironed out first. Apple will likely move there when the time is right.
My point about PCI-X, is that how many people use PCI-X cards? Granted it is backwards compatible, thats great, but in all reality there are very few cards on the market that would use it. There are more 64 bit PCI cards then PCI-X, my point was that I see it as more of a gimmick to sales, then a real solution for users. Just doing a quick search on google, I didn't really run across many products for PCI-X. Personally, I would of rather had seen 64 bit PCI.
As to my original posting about lack of PCI Express, I do admit that I neglected to remember that it wasn't out in the last PowerMac Rev, however, PCI Express has been out to a reasonable extent for 3-5 months now, and Intel has moved full steam ahead on it, and AMD is finally getting there as well. I'm most critizing Apple on the lack of an upgrade, since the PM is supposed to be a top of the line box, with all the goodies, it should of been rev'd again already to support it.
Originally posted by scavanger
When I said "lies" it was probably a bad choice of words, but it was refereing to the post that claimed a Windows computer can't be connected to the internet and stay secure, that is just false. Also to where the one person was comparing a G5 to a 3400+ that was a very bad comparison, wasn't really a lie, but a bad comparison. I don't care what platform you like ,atleast be some what realistic about what you are saying.
My point about PCI-X, is that how many people use PCI-X cards? Granted it is backwards compatible, thats great, but in all reality there are very few cards on the market that would use it. There are more 64 bit PCI cards then PCI-X, my point was that I see it as more of a gimmick to sales, then a real solution for users. Just doing a quick search on google, I didn't really run across many products for PCI-X. Personally, I would of rather had seen 64 bit PCI.
As to my original posting about lack of PCI Express, I do admit that I neglected to remember that it wasn't out in the last PowerMac Rev, however, PCI Express has been out to a reasonable extent for 3-5 months now, and Intel has moved full steam ahead on it, and AMD is finally getting there as well. I'm most critizing Apple on the lack of an upgrade, since the PM is supposed to be a top of the line box, with all the goodies, it should of been rev'd again already to support it.
Actually it was me comparing the dual g5 to a 3400+. Which I have, I'm actually selling the machine to use my 3.6ghz p4 that was given to me.
I have ran benches against these machines (dual 2.0 g5 970fx REV
If you want the numbers I will GLADLY give them to you. Btw, the 3400+ i'm referring to is the one with 1mb cache.
So don't say its false when you don't know for a fact. I've blown PC fanatics away by running these benches. True a single 2.0 will lose to a 3400+ but when it's dual... the dual g5 is the faster system.
Systems:
Mac -
Dual 2.0 970fx g5
160gb 7200 SATA
2x256mb PC3200 cas 2.5
9600xt 128mb VRAM
1ghz FSB
PC -
Single AMD 3400+ 1mb Cache Overlocked to 2.6ghz
120gb 7200 SATA
1x512mb PC3200 cas 2.5
Nvidia AOPEN Nvidia GeForce 5900XT 128mb VRAM
800mhz FSB on Asus k8v SE Deluxe Motherboard
Floating point isn't even a contest.
I'm most critizing Apple on the lack of an upgrade, since the PM is supposed to be a top of the line box, with all the goodies, it should of been rev'd again already to support it.
Apple does nothing by moving to PCI Express before their customers can use it. PC integrators must add in the latest whizbang stuff because basically they have no other way to differentiate themselves.
If I'm running a card that has to be stable I'm looking at staying PCI-X for at least another generation while PCI Express matures. There are always kinks to work out with new tech. PCI E will have some growing pains.
PCs are unfairly bashed here at appleinsider.com but that just goes with the territory.
As for Adware/Malware it's pretty much a given that PCs can be compromised quite easily
I expect to see a new Mobo architecture from Apple next with more goodies. I'd like to see PCI Express but then again It's really software that dictates productivity.
Can anyone weigh in on how the current PowerMac's PCI-X is useful?
What specific card could I buy today for PCI-X, and how would it be better then a more standard card?
Gimmick, or sometimes-useful feature?
PowerMac owners want to know!
-beagle