Well, as I stated in my post, you can't really compare the quality of Apple hardware to PC hardware - Apple has higher standards, which means you'll see less faulty components, better testing on new hardware, and realiable warranties that you can trust. The point I attempted to make was that some "consumers" will look at a BTO option like the 250 gb SATA drive and wonder why that adds $150.00 to the price tag.
There is *no* point to the comparison you made. There has to be a common use profile for the comparison to be meaningful. Offhand I cannot think of a single use profile that fits so that a person could reasonably buy either of those two machines. If you can come up with one, please share it.
Which is better, a minivan or a two-seat roadster? Depends on use.
I think we can definately state that if you're a tinker/enthusias then Apple's computer hardware under $2k stinks.
If you value simplicity and design then you like Apple at $1300-1900.
I feel Apple offers poor value on the desktop between $800-$2000. iMac is best in that range but less efficient by nature (if you use quality displays, you almost always want to use the same display with multiple computers). High end mini and low end Powermac are just bad value without any reason in particular.
It does not take a tinkerer or an enthusiast to appreciate those things, it's a return on investment question.
I feel Apple offers poor value on the desktop between $800-$2000. iMac is best in that range but less efficient by nature (if you use quality displays, you almost always want to use the same display with multiple computers). High end mini and low end Powermac are just bad value without any reason in particular.
It does not take a tinkerer or an enthusiast to appreciate those things, it's a return on investment question.
I'd have to disagree with you Gon. I've heard nothing but raves from actual iMac G5 users. Sure you're going to have the anal folks that want to amortize everything over the years to reach some inner peace with their value mojo but I cannot believe these people are anywere close to the norm. Many people want to pull the 'puter out the box and get up and running. I've also heard people laud the iMac G5 for its quiet operation. I fully realize that each one of us has our own value motivators.
I love my iMac G5 and it dusts my tricked out ThinkPad performance wise.
The newer models will be even faster...I think the area where some have made a mistake is to not upgrade the RAM to at least 512. With 512 I am getting terrific speed in web surfing and applications.
So, how about the 6800 Ultra. Is it worth the extra cash over the 9650, or the X800 Mac Edition (sp) ? I want an efficient system for Motion and whatever FCP can hand off to the video card.
So, how about the 6800 Ultra. Is it worth the extra cash over the 9650, or the X800 Mac Edition (sp) ? I want an efficient system for Motion and whatever FCP can hand off to the video card.
Any recommendations?
Brian
The X800 has a better fillrate and is MUCH quieter, so I'd lean strongly in that direction. If you want more details, Google a few reviews, but I don't think the 6800 has any advantage over the X800.
According to barefeats, the x800 and the 6800 produce the same amount of noise. It's just that the 6800 is huge. Unless you're going with the dual 30" displays though, the x800 is the way to go. Better antialiasing for less penalty, faster core, much smaller etc. Watch the April Rom update for the x800 - it seems deadly.
Comments
Originally posted by semi-fly
Well, as I stated in my post, you can't really compare the quality of Apple hardware to PC hardware - Apple has higher standards, which means you'll see less faulty components, better testing on new hardware, and realiable warranties that you can trust. The point I attempted to make was that some "consumers" will look at a BTO option like the 250 gb SATA drive and wonder why that adds $150.00 to the price tag.
There is *no* point to the comparison you made. There has to be a common use profile for the comparison to be meaningful. Offhand I cannot think of a single use profile that fits so that a person could reasonably buy either of those two machines. If you can come up with one, please share it.
Which is better, a minivan or a two-seat roadster? Depends on use.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I think we can definately state that if you're a tinker/enthusias then Apple's computer hardware under $2k stinks.
If you value simplicity and design then you like Apple at $1300-1900.
I feel Apple offers poor value on the desktop between $800-$2000. iMac is best in that range but less efficient by nature (if you use quality displays, you almost always want to use the same display with multiple computers). High end mini and low end Powermac are just bad value without any reason in particular.
It does not take a tinkerer or an enthusiast to appreciate those things, it's a return on investment question.
Originally posted by sunilraman
$450 also buys you a nice coreImage boost:
Please look at the numbers, not the length of the bars.
$450 buys a 45% increase in speed, not a tripling as the bar length suggests. An honest comparison would put the 9650's bar at about twice its length.
Originally posted by Gon
I feel Apple offers poor value on the desktop between $800-$2000. iMac is best in that range but less efficient by nature (if you use quality displays, you almost always want to use the same display with multiple computers). High end mini and low end Powermac are just bad value without any reason in particular.
It does not take a tinkerer or an enthusiast to appreciate those things, it's a return on investment question.
I'd have to disagree with you Gon. I've heard nothing but raves from actual iMac G5 users. Sure you're going to have the anal folks that want to amortize everything over the years to reach some inner peace with their value mojo but I cannot believe these people are anywere close to the norm. Many people want to pull the 'puter out the box and get up and running. I've also heard people laud the iMac G5 for its quiet operation. I fully realize that each one of us has our own value motivators.
The newer models will be even faster...I think the area where some have made a mistake is to not upgrade the RAM to at least 512. With 512 I am getting terrific speed in web surfing and applications.
So, how about the 6800 Ultra. Is it worth the extra cash over the 9650, or the X800 Mac Edition (sp) ? I want an efficient system for Motion and whatever FCP can hand off to the video card.
Any recommendations?
Brian
Originally posted by bjewett
Back to that GPU topic...
So, how about the 6800 Ultra. Is it worth the extra cash over the 9650, or the X800 Mac Edition (sp) ? I want an efficient system for Motion and whatever FCP can hand off to the video card.
Any recommendations?
Brian
The X800 has a better fillrate and is MUCH quieter, so I'd lean strongly in that direction. If you want more details, Google a few reviews, but I don't think the 6800 has any advantage over the X800.
bathgate
Tossing up the 9650 and 6800 myself at the moment but don't do enough motion stuff so will go with the 9650, upgrade later.