MHz doesn't matter, neccessarily (AthXP, P4, G4 Apollo, The Naked Mole Rat, etc.)
With the release of the P4 2.2 GHz, everyone has gnashed their teeth, and a great wailing has gone up amongst the AI faithful. 'Now we are this far behind!' they yell, widening their arms as a child would upon being asked how much they love Mommy.
Now, comes our friend the Naked Mole Rat, who prognostifies and pontifigates that the Apollo G4 is on its way, and speeds of 1.4 GHz should be expected.
Already, the backlash has happened, with grumblings of, "That's not enough, damnit Motorola, etc."
And while I certainly think that Mto's SemiCon Division is all sorts of messed up since 1998 or so, I think the truth will come to be known soon enough: The Apollo 1.4 GHz processor will match up nicely against the 1.67 GHz Athlon (that's right kids! The so-called Athlon 2000 runs at only 1667 MHz. Who's been running their own MHz Myth?)
And more than a few PC hardware review sites have shown that the Athlon 2000 can run with P4 at 2.2 GHz, and even beat it in many aspects.
So, for all you spec cold-warriors, and GHz bleaters and G5 wishers, and so on, I say:
GET OVER IT.
The Apollo will run with the x86 chips out there, and with the added fun of a fatter bus and better HD's will stand toe-to-toe with anything out there in the consumer space!
THe future's so bright I gotta wear shades!
SdC, the current holder of CAO (Chief Apologist's Office)
Now, comes our friend the Naked Mole Rat, who prognostifies and pontifigates that the Apollo G4 is on its way, and speeds of 1.4 GHz should be expected.
Already, the backlash has happened, with grumblings of, "That's not enough, damnit Motorola, etc."
And while I certainly think that Mto's SemiCon Division is all sorts of messed up since 1998 or so, I think the truth will come to be known soon enough: The Apollo 1.4 GHz processor will match up nicely against the 1.67 GHz Athlon (that's right kids! The so-called Athlon 2000 runs at only 1667 MHz. Who's been running their own MHz Myth?)
And more than a few PC hardware review sites have shown that the Athlon 2000 can run with P4 at 2.2 GHz, and even beat it in many aspects.
So, for all you spec cold-warriors, and GHz bleaters and G5 wishers, and so on, I say:
GET OVER IT.
The Apollo will run with the x86 chips out there, and with the added fun of a fatter bus and better HD's will stand toe-to-toe with anything out there in the consumer space!
THe future's so bright I gotta wear shades!
SdC, the current holder of CAO (Chief Apologist's Office)
Comments
The Apollo will run with the x86 chips out there, and with the added fun of a fatter bus and better HD's will stand toe-to-toe with anything out there in the consumer space!<hr></blockquote>
if a 1.4Ghz G4 does come out It'll be welcome and may be competitive but Apple needs to go to DP standard. they did it before when they couldn't increase clockspeed and made a big deal about 2 brains being better than one and then they were hypocrits and got rid of the duals standard once they were able to break 500.
I thought a fatter bus wouldn't show much advantage except in some areas and even at that not a huge difference?
Better HDs? the current hard drives don't max out ATA/66. Not sure what moving to ATA/100 will do for today's hard drives. I know it'll be ready for "tomorrow's" though
MHz does matter. The Northwood ain't half bad, especially coupled with the fact that it be overclocked to 2.6 GHz pretty easily. Still think that Apollo is a big bad processor? The P4 will continue to scale and add a 533 MHz system bus. Meanwhile, the Athlon XP still reigns over the G4, and it will take a nice leap for the G4 to get the kind of performance AMD has with that processor.
I was checking out DV magazine the other day, and they were putting the dual proc machines through their paces. They had the 2x800 G4, and various 2xAMD and 2xP4 configs.
Apple managed to hang in with these allegedly much faster systems in most apps, except for those where bandwidth and disk accessing were key.
The x86 configurations had the big pipe SCSI (I forget which standard) and the big pipe bus.
I don't think Apple will return to standard SCSI (but every little bit helps and I would love to see ATA 100 or even 133), but the fat bus will make a huge difference.
TW:
The Northwood does have a potential huge speed upside, but I think Apple can meed it with the G5, in late 2002 or 2003.
The G5 will have more transistors than I can imagine (something like 50 million to the G4's, like what? 12 million IIRC) , and will be a huge leap in PPC architecture. It will be more than a match for Northwood and whatever AMD comes up with.
Furthermore, I guarantee that Apollo Powermacs will be competitive on almost all cross-platform apps. And not just barefeats will stand up and recognize.
SdC
[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: suckfuldotcom ]</p>
All I keep reading is how the G4 is hoobled by slow memory and bus. So, if this new chip has DDR and faster bus, I'll get it.
anyone know why seek times on ATA drives are so slow compared to SCSI? and is it possible to make a 10,000 RPM ATA drive?
I am with suckful, I feel that apple has a bright future ahead of them, the current iMac is ripping up the scene, pc users and mac users are loving the hell out of it, and with more pc users seeing the new iMac they inevitably see the tibook and the ibook and go "wow", I feel that once apples line-up is rounded off by a nice fast super pmac, then all the pc users being pushed towards apple will be like "damn, and I thought they sucked"
also I believe that we are about to see a g5, and I think that the reason we didn't at MWSF was mainly because steve jobs wanted the show to be 100% iMac focused, but also because motorola doesn't have quite enough g5 yields yet, if thats the case then we should see a g5 in a month or two.
<strong>Hang? Obviously you didn't read the article, because the G4 got smacked around. It wasn't fun reading "the G4 comes in well behind the K7" or something of that nature over and over. Yeah, I suggest you read more carefully.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dude, I'm looking at it right now.
LW Wave Trace - faster than or equal to P4, both get smaked by the Athlon
LW Hummer - got spanked by both
12 sec cross dissolve - while the article says G4 loses, the scores are within a tight band. I'd call it a toss-up.
Five 1-sec cross dissolves - again, a narrow band, in which the G4 finishes at the back. Toss-up
AE tests - The G4 lost them all, because they all required higher I?O than Apple's current bus.
So, you say that's bad. I say it's great. Why? Because Apple's machine in the test, crippled by old technology (the 800 MHz G4, the 133 MHz bus, and the ATA drives) managed to be even considered in the ranks of dual P4's and Athlons.
So, let's crank up the G4 roughly 50-60% (dual 1.2 - 1.4 GHz maybe?) in clock speed, add a DDR bus, and add more bandwidth to the drives, add OSX with it's complete SMP (most tests were run i OS9 with it's less than adequate SMP) and come back again, after 1/20 or so.
The fact that Apple can make a competitive machine with technologies 6-18 months off the curve leads me to believe the new Powermacs will SCREAM.
SdC
[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: suckfuldotcom ]</p>
<strong>I'm starting to get excited about the new towers G5 or not! A dual 1.4ghz with DDR and faster bus, with the GeForce4 should be a nice little set up
agreed. but it should also be priced competitively.
$2999 sounds about right for that IMO.
probably won't happen but I think 2999 would be a "fair" price
SdC
Aside from going SCSI with a pair of 10K RPM UW HDs in a striped raid config, the only other route is to get the new IBM HDs 120GXP (i think?) and the Super WD with the 8 MB buffer.
What? Like ATA-100 is going to make a difference over ATA-66? Not for most people.
It will for me.
SdC
They were running OS 9 on that dual 800...
It is astounding that it was able to do as respectably as it did on an old school OS. Just wait till they redo that set of tests with OS X.1 and even faster G4s. Oh wow. what an unfair comparison.
<strong>WTF is this faster HD shit people keep talking about?
Aside from going SCSI with a pair of 10K RPM UW HDs in a striped raid config, the only other route is to get the new IBM HDs 120GXP (i think?) and the Super WD with the 8 MB buffer.
What? Like ATA-100 is going to make a difference over ATA-66? Not for most people.</strong><hr></blockquote>
that's the point I attempted (poorly)at making
<strong>So, for all you spec cold-warriors, and GHz bleaters and G5 wishers, and so on, I say:
GET OVER IT.</strong><hr></blockquote>
uh, the last time i checked i didn't need your permission to have an opinion on the matter. if whining means wishing for performance parity with wintels, then i guess i was whining. if the apollo really does come out and is as fast or faster than amd/intel's chips, then i think we're in good shape and that's what we all want. but since when did you become the arbiter of when reasonable expectations become "whining." you're not the police here.
<strong>Dual Processors NOTHING...
They were running OS 9 on that dual 800...
It is astounding that it was able to do as respectably as it did on an old school OS. Just wait till they redo that set of tests with OS X.1 and even faster G4s. Oh wow. what an unfair comparison.</strong><hr></blockquote>
why was it unfair? what are they supposed to do? write their own OS X native copy of the software titles? it's not their fault they only had OS 9 titles available.
and MP is not all that bad in OS 9 especially in FCP, PS, and several other pro apps that use it.
Why? Am I missing something? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
The fact that you have an opinion about my opinion only reinforces the idea you think I am somehow campaigning against.
SdC, not the police (I should add that to my sig)
<strong>Admactium:
The fact that you have an opinion about my opinion only reinforces the idea you think I am somehow campaigning against.</strong><hr></blockquote>
well, that sentence didn't really make much sense. but yes, in a way you are campaigning against something because in other threads you've taken people to task for being disappointed in the lack of performance in the towers. people can feel that way because all mac users should be disappointed.
i love macs, but we need them to get much faster soon. that's just a fact. in case you're wondering what the "ad" in my name stands for, it's "advertising." i'm in a business that uses macs almost exclusively. but at some point, if the speed gap isn't lessened, the creative departments will run out of ammo against the bean counters on why we should stay mac. we can't get over anything until they get faster. this is a fairly large market. once agencies go, so go print production facilities and service bureaus. the online departments of the marketing and advertising businesses are already mostly windows now.
[quote]<strong>SdC, not the police (I should add that to my sig)</strong><hr></blockquote>
feel free.