[quote] If Apple wants to enter this [3D] market it can't, and probably won't, do it with the current Power Mac line. Why? Because the features required would push the line out of a reasonable price range for Apple's traditional market. And even then, you'd find Windows solutions which were faster and cheaper. <hr></blockquote>
Why would the features required add that much to the price of a Mac? The faster bus, memory, & proc would benefit Apple's traditional markets as well. The additional hardware that would help in this market (namely professional 3D video cards) are probably best left to third parties; Apple would probably have to provide some incentive for it to happen, though.
The reason Apple doesn't have faster machines isn't because they don't want to piss off their traditional markets, it's because their primary CPU supplier has it's head up it's posterior. If Motorola could supply Apple with 1.6GHz G5s, Apple would use them in PowerMacs with a RapidIO bus & 333MHz DDR SDRAM, and unless the processors cost $2000 a piece, the machines would be at the same price points they're at now.
[quote] I'm being a bitch, so I might as well stick with it. The people bleating the loudest about Power Mac performance and screaming for 1.6GHz G5s are the hobbyists on this forum who want to run pirated copies of Maya (Or the new freebie version) and get Quake frame rates they can boast about to their PC owning buddies.* <hr></blockquote>
Well, I haven't been bleating about it, but I do think Macs need a huge shot in the arm performance wise, so I'd just like to say, yo mama.
If Apple's machines had performance that was in the same ballpark as PCs WRT 3D, it would give Apple access to markets they have no presence in now. You guys have been talking about Apple's traditional markets, graphics, illustration, etc., and a few new ones like NLE video editing & composition, but I can tell you that there are entire markets that are now VERY interested in the Mac, due to OS X.
OS X is getting attention from a lot of people in science and engineering because of it's UNIX underpinnings. IDL is being ported, apparently there's interest in a Pro-Engineer port, and a few other high-falutin' manufacturers of science/engineering apps are considering porting to OS X. Hell, even Maya wouldn't have been ported to the Mac if it weren't for OS X. All this attention is a good thing, because it gets Apple into markets it traditionally hasn't been in. There's just one catch-- if Apple can't deliver machines that are close to the price/performance ratio of PCs, Apple will continue to be locked out of the market.
If you want an example of how poorly Macs do with 3D, check <a href="http://www.blanos.com/benchmark/"; target="_blank">this page</a>. The current top end Mac gets it's a$$ handed to it by machines that cost half as much. That's simply pathetic. 3D and science/engineering apps are similar in that they're all processor and memory intensive; so not doing well with 3D doesn't bode well for the other apps.
i am as well, just recived my order of the soyo sy-k7v dragon plus motherboard for the new comp im building. im deciding between the athalon xp 1800 (then overclock it) or just springing for the 2000. this should tide me over until the g5's come out...
of course with my luck they'll come out sonner than expected! lol
<strong>just recived my order of the soyo sy-k7v dragon plus motherboard for the new comp im building. im deciding between the athalon xp 1800 (then overclock it) or just springing for the 2000. </strong><hr></blockquote>
How much are you paying for?
I am just going to get a cheap box but the case has to be NO beige.
I am just going to get a cheap box but the case has to be NO beige.</strong><hr></blockquote>
got mine at outpost.com 159.00 (169.00 overnight shipping) although they can be found cheaper elsewhere.
i ordered by phone 5 min before midnight closing and it was here sat around 10 am! fast shipping! nice motherboard methinks... i read all the reviews first. (tomshardware etc.) it was either that or the msi board or the dual tyan tiger...
I'm really hoping this whole issue over MHz and GHz is because Apple really did drop the G4 in their new PowerMac. Wouldn't it be great if they just decided to make the new G5 "clockless"? Ah just think of the marketing.
Seriously though, Apple would be so ahead of the competition if they jumped ship right now and started delivering Async chips. They wouldn't have to worry about the GHz hoopla, and their chips would use much less power and give off less heat to boot. Async chips give me goosebumps
FYI, from Postforum this morning, someone with a dual athlon system clocked 37+ CB for dual raytracing. The results below for G4 dual 800 were posted a while back. Note the raytracing score is 17.12
If Apple has G5s and related faster hardware, they can't be playing games with marketing and getting the most out of incremental speedbumps. They've got to get them on the market.
<strong>Cool, I am setting mine up at <a href="http://www.froodee.com/index2.html"; target="_blank">www.froodee.com/index2.html</a> (currently work in progress) and will also make lots of publicity when it's ready </strong><hr></blockquote>
I would rethink your website front page. It looks like it's selling Macs. Your computer is a tool. Take a picture of the house, not the hammer that built the house.
<strong>I realise many people will make the same decision as you, but out of interest, do you make the buying decision for the secret Rebel base? Or an IT department? A media company? An educational establishment? Or is your purchase a single Mac for your own use?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just a Mac for me. I was ready to buy in Oct/Nov 2001, but waited for MWSF for the latest tower upgrade. I would have been happy with a 1.0-1.2GHz G4, but now that the iMac is as powerful as the current towers, I think a HUGE leap in performance is coming to the pro line very soon!
A 1.6 GHz Apollo G4 minimum, if not the G5. :cool:
I would rethink your website front page. It looks like it's selling Macs. Your computer is a tool. Take a picture of the house, not the hammer that built the house.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The background image is loaded at random and I only made the mac one so I had two - I will go with images like the green one and will replace the mac one as soon as I find some time to make more. Thanks for the toughts though, I will consider it when making other backgrounds! :cool:
i am as well, just recived my order of the soyo sy-k7v dragon plus motherboard for the new comp im building. im deciding between the athalon xp 1800 (then overclock it) or just springing for the 2000. this should tide me over until the g5's come out...
of course with my luck they'll come out sonner than expected! lol</strong><hr></blockquote>
yeah...like a week after you get the Athlon box built!
i am as well, just recived my order of the soyo sy-k7v dragon plus motherboard for the new comp im building. im deciding between the athalon xp 1800 (then overclock it) or just springing for the 2000. this should tide me over until the g5's come out...
of course with my luck they'll come out sonner than expected! lol</strong><hr></blockquote>
yeah...like a week after you get the Athlon box built!
I'm being a bitch, so I might as well stick with it. The people bleating the loudest about Power Mac performance and screaming for 1.6GHz G5s are the hobbyists on this forum who want to run pirated copies of Maya (Or the new freebie version) and get Quake frame rates they can boast about to their PC owning buddies.*
By the way, xype, from what position are you arguing? A Mac owner who wants to upgrade? A Windows user who wants to switch? Work for a company who'd switch to Apple if its machines outperformed Intel/AMD hardware? Or one that's considering dumping Apple?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gamblor has already pointed this out nicely but I feel I have to post something anyway. Although I'm not bleating for G5s.
Apple would ultimately like to attract some users who aren't just sticking with the platform because they have invested so much in it.
There are a great many companies (I'm certain one is so surely there are many others) that produce engineering and scientific apps who are now very interested in OS X. Many of them won't release a product though because they simply don't feel Apple offers hardware for the areas they produce software.
Hardware is very much an issue. Thankfully it is one I am certain Apple is aware of.
Apple needs to offer competitive hardware. One would think that this is a self-evident statement, but judging from some of the AppleZombies on this thread, it must be proven.
Performance matters, how is that difficult to understand? Price and value are also important. Apple's Powermac line has none of these attributes. It's performance lags behind boxes costing less than half the price of a high-end G4. WTF?
I remember when Apple built computers that were expensive, but the expense was justified because they were the fastest machines available for what they did. Now Apple has lost it, they've got no justification for the high price beyond aesthetics. Lame.
<strong>This thread totaly overlooks the fact that any processor under the speed of 2GHz + is not a G5.
What happened to the old AI members that new the facts before they started to rant on about G5's at 1.6GHz. That (1.6GHz) would be an Apollo processor not a G5. Duh....
ANd what credible evidence is there that Apple is announcing anything on the 22nd? Is it the fact that a ton of idiots here were bitching about the fact there was no PowerMac at MWSF, and they all said that "Apple should announce new PowerMac's within a few months if not the end of the month - they can't not release a PowerMac at MWSF.
That is where I saw this stupid rumor start. Here at AI!
I don't suppose you realize that Apple released new powerMac's at NY did you? They don't update every product line at every show. I'd say the soonest a major PowerMac update (breaking GHz barrier) would be Seybold. or WWDC.
Oh yes, and it would be a G4 because the G5 debut's at starting speeds of 2GHz+ according to Motorola.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Moto's own processor roadmap has been changed...shows G5 @ 800MHz - 2 GHz
[quote] Apple would ultimately like to attract some users who aren't just sticking with the platform because they have invested so much in it.<hr></blockquote>
Bingo. If Apple is just going to rely on their past users upgrading to new machines for their business, then they're screwed, and we're all wasting our time. Apple's market share has been steadily shrinking since.. when? 1996? Basing your business on selling replacement machines to the faithful is a recipe for disaster.
<strong>Some people have stated that the G5 can not be released any time soon because it starts at over 2ghz. This is total BS. Look at Motorola's own website.
You do understand, that the G5 is not a single chip, but a whole class of chips, with each chip designed for a different market(s)[e.g MPC8540]. I seriously doubt that we'll see an 800mhz G5 in any Macs -- I'm sure those are destined for embedded purposes, where heat and power usage are more of an issue.
I'm starting to think more than half the people whining about this thing aren't even in the market for one, and if they are, it's so they can fire up Internet Explorer, come here, and post about HOW FAST their G5 is.
"Internet Explorer loaded in, like, half a second!"
If people bought dual 800's and actually spent as much time using them for work as they do coming here and bitching about clockspeed, their productivity increase would probably be greater than they'd get from having a 1.6 GHz G5 anyway.
Oh, and never mind with ther "I need it for rendering <insert high end graphics software title>. I'm not talking about you.
I'm am so amazed how frequently the AI boards are flooded with negative 'not fast enough' comments. I wouldn't care in the least if my neighbor had a 12GHz quad AMD K9 while I was running along with an 'underpowered' 933MHz G4 as long as it allowed me to accomplish my work.
VERY few users need more processing power than is currently available from even entry level systems. In fact, there have been many studies over the past couple years looking at the effects of computing power on operational efficiencies, basically showing that beyond a very mild level processing power, computers have little or no impact on efficency.
Of course, I do understand that there are some number of end users that need amazing amounts of power, but really, most (if not all) of them use purpose-built clusters or true supercomputers.
And for those of you out there with penis-envy, check out some of the Appleseed clusters here...
Comments
Why would the features required add that much to the price of a Mac? The faster bus, memory, & proc would benefit Apple's traditional markets as well. The additional hardware that would help in this market (namely professional 3D video cards) are probably best left to third parties; Apple would probably have to provide some incentive for it to happen, though.
The reason Apple doesn't have faster machines isn't because they don't want to piss off their traditional markets, it's because their primary CPU supplier has it's head up it's posterior. If Motorola could supply Apple with 1.6GHz G5s, Apple would use them in PowerMacs with a RapidIO bus & 333MHz DDR SDRAM, and unless the processors cost $2000 a piece, the machines would be at the same price points they're at now.
[quote] I'm being a bitch, so I might as well stick with it. The people bleating the loudest about Power Mac performance and screaming for 1.6GHz G5s are the hobbyists on this forum who want to run pirated copies of Maya (Or the new freebie version) and get Quake frame rates they can boast about to their PC owning buddies.* <hr></blockquote>
Well, I haven't been bleating about it, but I do think Macs need a huge shot in the arm performance wise, so I'd just like to say, yo mama.
If Apple's machines had performance that was in the same ballpark as PCs WRT 3D, it would give Apple access to markets they have no presence in now. You guys have been talking about Apple's traditional markets, graphics, illustration, etc., and a few new ones like NLE video editing & composition, but I can tell you that there are entire markets that are now VERY interested in the Mac, due to OS X.
OS X is getting attention from a lot of people in science and engineering because of it's UNIX underpinnings. IDL is being ported, apparently there's interest in a Pro-Engineer port, and a few other high-falutin' manufacturers of science/engineering apps are considering porting to OS X. Hell, even Maya wouldn't have been ported to the Mac if it weren't for OS X. All this attention is a good thing, because it gets Apple into markets it traditionally hasn't been in. There's just one catch-- if Apple can't deliver machines that are close to the price/performance ratio of PCs, Apple will continue to be locked out of the market.
If you want an example of how poorly Macs do with 3D, check <a href="http://www.blanos.com/benchmark/"; target="_blank">this page</a>. The current top end Mac gets it's a$$ handed to it by machines that cost half as much. That's simply pathetic. 3D and science/engineering apps are similar in that they're all processor and memory intensive; so not doing well with 3D doesn't bode well for the other apps.
Really, I am getting an Athlon box and let my Dual 500 G4 to sit on my desk until:
1) It dies
or
2) G5 comes and at reasonable price (that doesn't mean it has to be cheap, all I want is the performance that worth the price)
[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</p>
i am as well, just recived my order of the soyo sy-k7v dragon plus motherboard for the new comp im building. im deciding between the athalon xp 1800 (then overclock it) or just springing for the 2000. this should tide me over until the g5's come out...
of course with my luck they'll come out sonner than expected! lol
<strong>just recived my order of the soyo sy-k7v dragon plus motherboard for the new comp im building. im deciding between the athalon xp 1800 (then overclock it) or just springing for the 2000. </strong><hr></blockquote>
How much are you paying for?
I am just going to get a cheap box but the case has to be NO beige.
<strong>
How much are you paying for?
I am just going to get a cheap box but the case has to be NO beige.</strong><hr></blockquote>
got mine at outpost.com 159.00 (169.00 overnight shipping) although they can be found cheaper elsewhere.
i ordered by phone 5 min before midnight closing and it was here sat around 10 am! fast shipping! nice motherboard methinks... i read all the reviews first. (tomshardware etc.) it was either that or the msi board or the dual tyan tiger...
Seriously though, Apple would be so ahead of the competition if they jumped ship right now and started delivering Async chips. They wouldn't have to worry about the GHz hoopla, and their chips would use much less power and give off less heat to boot. Async chips give me goosebumps
[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: ehuntington ]</p>
If Apple has G5s and related faster hardware, they can't be playing games with marketing and getting the most out of incremental speedbumps. They've got to get them on the market.
Cinebench 2000 V1.0 Performance
************************************************** **
Tester : Ryan Crippen
Processor : G4 800mhz
Number of CPUs : 2
Physical Memory : 1.5 gigs
Operating System : Mac OS 9.2.1
Graphic Card : Nvidia GeForce2 MX w/Twin View 64mb ram
Resolution : 1152 x 870
Color Depth : 24-Bit (Millions)
************************************************** **
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 6.67 CB
Shading (OpenGL) : 8.94 CB
Raytracing (Single CPU): 9.70 CB
Raytracing (Multiple CPU): 17.12 CB
OpenGL Shading is 1.33 times faster than CINEMA 4D Shading!
2 CPUs are 1.77 times faster than 1 CPU !
<strong>Cool, I am setting mine up at <a href="http://www.froodee.com/index2.html"; target="_blank">www.froodee.com/index2.html</a> (currently work in progress) and will also make lots of publicity when it's ready
I would rethink your website front page. It looks like it's selling Macs. Your computer is a tool. Take a picture of the house, not the hammer that built the house.
<strong>I realise many people will make the same decision as you, but out of interest, do you make the buying decision for the secret Rebel base? Or an IT department? A media company? An educational establishment? Or is your purchase a single Mac for your own use?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just a Mac for me. I was ready to buy in Oct/Nov 2001, but waited for MWSF for the latest tower upgrade. I would have been happy with a 1.0-1.2GHz G4, but now that the iMac is as powerful as the current towers, I think a HUGE leap in performance is coming to the pro line very soon!
A 1.6 GHz Apollo G4 minimum, if not the G5. :cool:
<strong>
I would rethink your website front page. It looks like it's selling Macs. Your computer is a tool. Take a picture of the house, not the hammer that built the house.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The background image is loaded at random and I only made the mac one so I had two - I will go with images like the green one and will replace the mac one as soon as I find some time to make more. Thanks for the toughts though, I will consider it when making other backgrounds! :cool:
<strong>hey leonis!
i am as well, just recived my order of the soyo sy-k7v dragon plus motherboard for the new comp im building. im deciding between the athalon xp 1800 (then overclock it) or just springing for the 2000. this should tide me over until the g5's come out...
of course with my luck they'll come out sonner than expected! lol</strong><hr></blockquote>
yeah...like a week after you get the Athlon box built!
<strong>hey leonis!
i am as well, just recived my order of the soyo sy-k7v dragon plus motherboard for the new comp im building. im deciding between the athalon xp 1800 (then overclock it) or just springing for the 2000. this should tide me over until the g5's come out...
of course with my luck they'll come out sonner than expected! lol</strong><hr></blockquote>
yeah...like a week after you get the Athlon box built!
<strong>
I'm being a bitch, so I might as well stick with it. The people bleating the loudest about Power Mac performance and screaming for 1.6GHz G5s are the hobbyists on this forum who want to run pirated copies of Maya (Or the new freebie version) and get Quake frame rates they can boast about to their PC owning buddies.*
By the way, xype, from what position are you arguing? A Mac owner who wants to upgrade? A Windows user who wants to switch? Work for a company who'd switch to Apple if its machines outperformed Intel/AMD hardware? Or one that's considering dumping Apple?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gamblor has already pointed this out nicely but I feel I have to post something anyway. Although I'm not bleating for G5s.
Apple would ultimately like to attract some users who aren't just sticking with the platform because they have invested so much in it.
There are a great many companies (I'm certain one is so surely there are many others) that produce engineering and scientific apps who are now very interested in OS X. Many of them won't release a product though because they simply don't feel Apple offers hardware for the areas they produce software.
Hardware is very much an issue. Thankfully it is one I am certain Apple is aware of.
Performance matters, how is that difficult to understand? Price and value are also important. Apple's Powermac line has none of these attributes. It's performance lags behind boxes costing less than half the price of a high-end G4. WTF?
I remember when Apple built computers that were expensive, but the expense was justified because they were the fastest machines available for what they did. Now Apple has lost it, they've got no justification for the high price beyond aesthetics. Lame.
Thats my bet.
<strong>This thread totaly overlooks the fact that any processor under the speed of 2GHz + is not a G5.
What happened to the old AI members that new the facts before they started to rant on about G5's at 1.6GHz. That (1.6GHz) would be an Apollo processor not a G5. Duh....
ANd what credible evidence is there that Apple is announcing anything on the 22nd? Is it the fact that a ton of idiots here were bitching about the fact there was no PowerMac at MWSF, and they all said that "Apple should announce new PowerMac's within a few months if not the end of the month - they can't not release a PowerMac at MWSF.
That is where I saw this stupid rumor start. Here at AI!
I don't suppose you realize that Apple released new powerMac's at NY did you? They don't update every product line at every show. I'd say the soonest a major PowerMac update (breaking GHz barrier) would be Seybold. or WWDC.
Oh yes, and it would be a G4 because the G5 debut's at starting speeds of 2GHz+ according to Motorola.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Moto's own processor roadmap has been changed...shows G5 @ 800MHz - 2 GHz
[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Derrick 61 ]</p>
Bingo. If Apple is just going to rely on their past users upgrading to new machines for their business, then they're screwed, and we're all wasting our time. Apple's market share has been steadily shrinking since.. when? 1996? Basing your business on selling replacement machines to the faithful is a recipe for disaster.
I certainly hope that that's not the case.
<strong>Some people have stated that the G5 can not be released any time soon because it starts at over 2ghz. This is total BS. Look at Motorola's own website.
<a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?nodeId=03M943030450467M983989030230"; target="_blank">http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/ov erview.jsp?nodeId=03M943030450467M983989030230</a>
This states that the G5 will start at 800Mhz and scale upward past 2Ghz.
Do these people just make crap like this up??? Who Knows???????
[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: M5884 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
You do understand, that the G5 is not a single chip, but a whole class of chips, with each chip designed for a different market(s)[e.g MPC8540]. I seriously doubt that we'll see an 800mhz G5 in any Macs -- I'm sure those are destined for embedded purposes, where heat and power usage are more of an issue.
<strong>
The other explanation (of course), is that Apple is only able to sell what is available from their suppliers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My God! Someone finally made sense.
<strong>
Amen, sister.
I'm starting to think more than half the people whining about this thing aren't even in the market for one, and if they are, it's so they can fire up Internet Explorer, come here, and post about HOW FAST their G5 is.
"Internet Explorer loaded in, like, half a second!"
If people bought dual 800's and actually spent as much time using them for work as they do coming here and bitching about clockspeed, their productivity increase would probably be greater than they'd get from having a 1.6 GHz G5 anyway.
Oh, and never mind with ther "I need it for rendering <insert high end graphics software title>. I'm not talking about you.
[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: murbot ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
THANK YOU!
I'm am so amazed how frequently the AI boards are flooded with negative 'not fast enough' comments. I wouldn't care in the least if my neighbor had a 12GHz quad AMD K9 while I was running along with an 'underpowered' 933MHz G4 as long as it allowed me to accomplish my work.
VERY few users need more processing power than is currently available from even entry level systems. In fact, there have been many studies over the past couple years looking at the effects of computing power on operational efficiencies, basically showing that beyond a very mild level processing power, computers have little or no impact on efficency.
Of course, I do understand that there are some number of end users that need amazing amounts of power, but really, most (if not all) of them use purpose-built clusters or true supercomputers.
And for those of you out there with penis-envy, check out some of the Appleseed clusters here...
<a href="http://exodus.physics.ucla.edu/appleseed/appleseedsites.html"; target="_blank">http://exodus.physics.ucla.edu/appleseed/appleseedsites.html</a>;
God! can you imagine playing Q3 on THAT!
:eek: