Tell me something, this discussion of Mhz being important for games I find seriously funny.
Which outperforms which for gaming?
2.0Ghz P4 with 16MB TNT card
or
1.4Ghz P4 with GeForce3 card?
Sure, the first one with the same card would be faster<read slightly higher fps>; but the second one will blitz in this config.
<sorry for using Wintel examples>
I know my comparison is extreme but shows you that gaming, especially in the case of 3D, depends MOSTLY on the graphics card..simple, so why don't you bitch about that now.
And why the ***k would you buy a Mac to play games <not saying the games on there suck, honest>??? Get a frigging console if all you seem to rant about is games.
Yummm, gimme more of that Mhz myth RDF.. I still buy it and don't even own a Mac. Only REAL way to tell the diff in Mhz is if your comparing an APPLE with an APPLE... not a LEMON.
Macromedia's stuff is here for XP so how come not X? </strong><hr></blockquote>
This is bullsh1t!
Windows XP runs on the same NT 5 kernel as Windows 2000. Did I say it was the NT kernel, just a new version of the same core that Windows NT 4 was shipping with since when, 1996-97?
They probably didn't need to do anything other than minor compatibility checking to support those apps on Windows XP. Anything that already runs on Win2K is not even an issue for the most part.
On the other hand you have to re-write apps for a different operating system for OS X, it's not just an OS version upgrade like from Mac OS 8 to OS 9 or from NT 4 to Windows 2000 to XP. But the reason they didn't rush to support OS X right away is pretty simple. They're waiting for the new versions of their apps. If they released Photoshop 6 for OS X now, a bunch of Photoshop owners would be up in arms asking for a free upgrade, because after all, it's the same version of the software. So instead they're dragging it out till they release Photoshop 7, so they can sell it for the price of a full upgrade.
Mhz are important, yes... but not *the* most important thing while judging performance of a certain computer for a particular task. By the way, to all who say that cpu rating makes for a better gaming system, well, no comment. All the current (and 3 generations back) GPU cards take care of the actual gaming stuff like rendering and so on, leaving the CPU mostly free for more mundane tasks like keeping track of i/o (joysticks/keyboard) and other less intricate things. Even audio is done off cpu now.
Regarding Mhz for scientific/rendering/number crunching...most current generation processors have dedicated hard wired registers and instructions sets (read: altivec on the Mac side) that take care of that without the CPU core and its mhz rating sweating too much. Example MAYA and Mathematica, both Altivec enhanced: a 400Mhz G4 would be usable; a 600Mhz G3 well, sorry charlie. Get the idea? For regular word processing kind of thingies, mhz, ghz, etc... are just that: lots and lots of wasted cycles per second.
Why did the Mhz wars become so wildly (boring) publicized ever since the first PCs were introduced a couple of decades ago? Some of these boards members weren't even born back in the era of Z80, 6052, 8086, etc... most cpu chips performed the same basic functions but the only way to rate them was via their on board memory and instructions set capability. Speed was pretty much a non issue back then. All of a sudden speed records were being broken!!! A HUGE LEAP, someone had introduced a cpu capable of 8mhz!!!! dang, that was fast. So chip suppliers began to market their silicone the same way the auto industry does: Engine HP and Top Speed (mph).
You might never have to drive a new car up to 130mph or use all of its 300hp, but marketing gurus make you believe you actually need all of that. Same things apply to electrons and CPUs. Intel and others are making *amazing* past 2ghz chips, which sounds great, doesn't it? When something seems too good to be true, it probably is. Bar none.
When I said that it was useless trying to make a point regarding the childish mhz wars constantly being developed around here, is because I am not trying to convince anyone in particular, just giving my opinion to those who might find it useful or even ludicrous. I respect others who think my comments are totally wrong. But since some around here take things too personal, I might as well just don't cross that line and return to simpler less passionate discussions.
Applenut, regarding that "BS" thing, it was you who judged my mhz comment as such in the first place; no offense but I just wanted to draw your attention to that.
Wise tip to all: flaming others for being wrong, only burns yourself.
I guess I am just too old to try to fit in the discussions here. For that I apologize and will try to go back to "lurking" and enjoying the otherwise positive attitude found among most of you. Cheer up guys and have lots of fun learning and becoming productive citizens while expanding and enhancing bit by bit the Mac user family.
.....and one more thing.... :cool:
900, 2x1000, 2100 G4 soon
(I have never been right before, I hope I am at least close this time)
Regarding Mhz for scientific/rendering/number crunching...most current generation processors have dedicated hard wired registers and instructions sets (read: altivec on the Mac side) that take care of that without the CPU core and its mhz rating sweating too much. Example MAYA and Mathematica, both Altivec enhanced: a 400Mhz G4 would be usable; a 600Mhz G3 well, sorry charlie. Get the idea? </strong><hr></blockquote>
No Charlie, I don't get the idea. Are you saying this as a Maya user? Have you used Maya on both platforms? Let me tell you this, I've used Maya on SGI, Windows and Mac and Mhz matters, A LOT. That's why SGI's been bleeding in the 3D market, the latest word is that they sold all their 3D patents to Microsoft.
Altivec isn't worth junk for 3D rendering. Because Altivec only supports 32 bit floating point operations, and serious 3D rendering (not real-time like Quake, but high-quality software rendering, like Maya) requires higher precision than that.
No Charlie, I don't get the idea. Are you saying this as a Maya user? Have you used Maya on both platforms? Let me tell you this, I've used Maya on SGI, Windows and Mac and Mhz matters, A LOT. That's why SGI's been bleeding in the 3D market, the latest word is that they sold all their 3D patents to Microsoft.
Altivec isn't worth junk for 3D rendering. Because Altivec only supports 32 bit floating point operations, and serious 3D rendering (not real-time like Quake, but high-quality software rendering, like Maya) requires higher precision than that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are very right timortis. The 600 mhz G3 would be WAY faster at raytracing than the 400 mhz G4. Altivec simply doesn't accelerate raytracing. And this is true for both Maya, FormZ, Cinema 4d etc.
When apple shows bakeoffs on maya or cinema4D on a G4, the rendering tasks are most about the mapping and some postrendering effects, that the Altivec engine actually CAN accelerate. But these showoffs doesn't match real-life usage.
I know that there are dual and quad x86 systems out there but unless you want to run a UNIX variant on them, four processors doesn't mean anything but that you have a very expensive and in-efficient space heater. Windows doesn't support multiple processors in a way that would benefit most users. OSX uses multiprocessing even when there are no apps running that directly support it. That's a big difference from placing one app on one chip and another app on another chip leaving the rest up to the developer.
Well KidRed, more and more 'sources' are pointing to some sort of 'quiet' speedbump next week. There goes my 'promo' theory. I still say it won't happpen 'til after Feb 1 (but then, I also like the Ravens over the Steelers).
One thing I don't get. If Apple is only pushing the Power Macs to 1GHz, why a release them after MWSF? The Power Macs were very conspicious by their absence at MWSF, so all eyes are really on them now. Kinda defeats the purpose of a 'quiet' release doesn't it?
(hmmm...did I just say 'only 1Ghz'? Wow, I really have been letting my imagination get the best of me.)
You are aware of a company called Motorola are you not? You are aware that in 12+ months time they have moved us a whopping 134MHz faster. That's it. No more. In 12 months. 134MHz.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What's that warning on an investment prospectus?
"Past performance is not indicative of future returns."
Whatever happens will happen. It won't effect me, because I don't have the money to buy one.
"In addition, Motorola offers specialized features such as Silicon on Insulator (SOI)"
"Motorola is currently running embedded microprocessor cores on this advanced 0.13 micron process. Production is expected to begin in second quarter of this year in MOS13, Motorola's most advanced 8-inch facility in Austin, Texas."
This means that Motorola has @ least 8 months manufacturing experience making products with HiP7.
That's why when the Motorola rep was quoted as saying the next G4 would have SOI on a 0.18µ die, I was somewhat chagrined.
I still believe the next update will be Feb. using SOI, but not 0.13µ. Then Apollo will follow @ MWNY in July? on the 0.13µ die and maybe, if we're lucky DDRsDram(I still don't expect this until the G5 arrives in late 2002 early 2003)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Adendum:
I lied, maybe I'll just buy a G3 upgrade card for my 8100 and if still available a graphics card and wait. If the 733MHz on a 133MHz bus remains as the low end that doesn't justify buying at this time.
[quote]<strong>Why did the Mhz wars become so wildly (boring) publicized ever since the first PCs were introduced a couple of decades ago? Some of these boards members weren't even born back in the era of Z80, 6052, 8086, etc... most cpu chips performed the same basic functions but the only way to rate them was via their on board memory and instructions set capability. Speed was pretty much a non issue back then. All of a sudden speed records were being broken!!! A HUGE LEAP, someone had introduced a cpu capable of 8mhz!!!! dang, that was fast. So chip suppliers began to market their silicone the same way the auto industry does: Engine HP and Top Speed (mph).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes and no. I remember Apple crowing when the Apple ][e shattered the MHz barrier with the 65C02, which clocked at a blazing 1.1MHz.Then again, that might be because I had a //c, which also shipped with that processor.
Maybe Apple should bring Rockwell back on board as a chip supplier?
Those looking to buy a Power Mac...start looking around at who has dual 800's cause after next week they are going to be a good buy. I have a feeling we are at 133MHz bus and SDRAM for a little while longer... <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
I remember Apple crowing when the Apple ][e shattered the MHz barrier with the 65C02, which clocked at a blazing 1.1MHz.Then again, that might be because I had a //c, which also shipped with that processor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Amorph, the ][e and the //c had different processors. I think the //c had 4 extra machine language commands built it, but no one used them because they didn't speed anything up and software that did use them couldn't run on the ][e (because it was a different chip). They were only slightly different, but I believe they had diffenent names.
Mhz are important, yes... but not *the* most important thing while judging performance of a certain computer for a particular task. By the way, to all who say that cpu rating makes for a better gaming system, well, no comment. All the current (and 3 generations back) GPU cards take care of the actual gaming stuff like rendering and so on, leaving the CPU mostly free for more mundane tasks like keeping track of i/o (joysticks/keyboard) and other less intricate things. Even audio is done off cpu now.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh, no. Don't believe me? Then ask John Carmack. Mhz does matter for games. If it didn't then the huge fps discrepancies between Macs and PCs for UT and Q3 wouldn't exist. Throughout the last few years in which PC gaming has seen a huge rise, one general trend has been observed. The latest gen video card of it's time was always cpu limited. In other words the CPU (on both sides of the fence) has been the limiting factor in higher fps numbers. The GPU industry has stayed ahead of the curve of CPU manufacturers by generally releasing next gen GPUs with a lot of headroom. So how does one explain the discrepancy in time demo fps between a PC and a Mac each with an identical GeForce3? It's definitely not the drivers. Drivers wouldn't explain that large of a difference. The fact is that P4s and Athlons use a lot more of the GF3's headroom than a Mac.
As for processor performance in general, you can't argue that Macs get the work done just as fast anymore. Why? OSX. I don't care if you're on a Dual 800, it's simply not as snappy as OS 9 on that same machine. And as you head down the mac product line it only gets worse. Why do you think everyone wants the mythical Raycer chip so badly? It's because Quartz is a dog on the current hardware. But from here on out, OS X is supposed to be the default OS. Has XP had the same effect? No, in fact its faster. Especially considering you can turn all the eye candy off. But the basic finder in XP is faster with each hardware rev. This is Apple's big problem. X really slows down the current hardware. XP doesn't. And XP is running on chips that aren't going to stop scaling in Mhz any time soon. MS hit the ground running with their new OS. Apple just hit the ground...hard.
Myself and many others use Macs because of the interface. It's just much more refined and I get stuff done faster. OS 9 was so good that despite the fact it currently runs on slower hardware, it's interface is still faster than XP. But if that no longer holds true because we're falling behind and XP is getting faster, then this reasoning doesn't hold true any longer.
My next computer will definitely be a Mac again, there's no question. This hasn't become a huge problem yet. But after over 4 years of remaining in a relative holding pattern, the trend doesn't look good.
The big question for everyone is: "Is the PowerMac of today much faster than the one I bought 3 years ago?" Unfortunately due to Moto, the answer is no. An 866 isn't linearly faster than an old 500, so it's not that huge of a jump. Then factor in the slowness of Quartz, and you've got a really big dillema.
<strong>Well KidRed, more and more 'sources' are pointing to some sort of 'quiet' speedbump next week. There goes my 'promo' theory. I still say it won't happpen 'til after Feb 1 (but then, I also like the Ravens over the Steelers).
One thing I don't get. If Apple is only pushing the Power Macs to 1GHz, why a release them after MWSF? The Power Macs were very conspicious by their absence at MWSF, so all eyes are really on them now. Kinda defeats the purpose of a 'quiet' release doesn't it?
(hmmm...did I just say 'only 1Ghz'? Wow, I really have been letting my imagination get the best of me.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
What if Steve thought the towers would be ready and raised the show time by 1/2 hour to 2 1/2 hours. Then was told, they won't be ready. Maybe that's why it was changed back to 2 hours and we got no towers? Wasn't the promo pushed back to Jan 31st around the same time?
I seriously believe if we were only getting a small speed bump, they wouldv'e been released by now. This latest 'source' sells macs and is going by what his boss told him. He seemed very 'giddy' and confident. That's something I can put faith in, until proven otherwise. I do think we will be over 1.0ghz tho.
Comments
duel 733
duel gig
quad 867
Tell me something, this discussion of Mhz being important for games I find seriously funny.
Which outperforms which for gaming?
2.0Ghz P4 with 16MB TNT card
or
1.4Ghz P4 with GeForce3 card?
Sure, the first one with the same card would be faster<read slightly higher fps>; but the second one will blitz in this config.
<sorry for using Wintel examples>
I know my comparison is extreme but shows you that gaming, especially in the case of 3D, depends MOSTLY on the graphics card..simple, so why don't you bitch about that now.
And why the ***k would you buy a Mac to play games <not saying the games on there suck, honest>??? Get a frigging console if all you seem to rant about is games.
Yummm, gimme more of that Mhz myth RDF.. I still buy it and don't even own a Mac. Only REAL way to tell the diff in Mhz is if your comparing an APPLE with an APPLE... not a LEMON.
<strong>
Macromedia's stuff is here for XP so how come not X? </strong><hr></blockquote>
This is bullsh1t!
Windows XP runs on the same NT 5 kernel as Windows 2000. Did I say it was the NT kernel, just a new version of the same core that Windows NT 4 was shipping with since when, 1996-97?
They probably didn't need to do anything other than minor compatibility checking to support those apps on Windows XP. Anything that already runs on Win2K is not even an issue for the most part.
On the other hand you have to re-write apps for a different operating system for OS X, it's not just an OS version upgrade like from Mac OS 8 to OS 9 or from NT 4 to Windows 2000 to XP. But the reason they didn't rush to support OS X right away is pretty simple. They're waiting for the new versions of their apps. If they released Photoshop 6 for OS X now, a bunch of Photoshop owners would be up in arms asking for a free upgrade, because after all, it's the same version of the software. So instead they're dragging it out till they release Photoshop 7, so they can sell it for the price of a full upgrade.
[quote] 1.2Ghz, 1.4Ghz, Dual 1.2Ghz. Next Monday or Tuesday. G4. That's all I have right now. <hr></blockquote>
Waiting to find out if he knows about DDR, bus, etc.
Mhz are important, yes... but not *the* most important thing while judging performance of a certain computer for a particular task. By the way, to all who say that cpu rating makes for a better gaming system, well, no comment. All the current (and 3 generations back) GPU cards take care of the actual gaming stuff like rendering and so on, leaving the CPU mostly free for more mundane tasks like keeping track of i/o (joysticks/keyboard) and other less intricate things. Even audio is done off cpu now.
Regarding Mhz for scientific/rendering/number crunching...most current generation processors have dedicated hard wired registers and instructions sets (read: altivec on the Mac side) that take care of that without the CPU core and its mhz rating sweating too much. Example MAYA and Mathematica, both Altivec enhanced: a 400Mhz G4 would be usable; a 600Mhz G3 well, sorry charlie. Get the idea? For regular word processing kind of thingies, mhz, ghz, etc... are just that: lots and lots of wasted cycles per second.
Why did the Mhz wars become so wildly (boring) publicized ever since the first PCs were introduced a couple of decades ago? Some of these boards members weren't even born back in the era of Z80, 6052, 8086, etc... most cpu chips performed the same basic functions but the only way to rate them was via their on board memory and instructions set capability. Speed was pretty much a non issue back then. All of a sudden speed records were being broken!!! A HUGE LEAP, someone had introduced a cpu capable of 8mhz!!!! dang, that was fast. So chip suppliers began to market their silicone the same way the auto industry does: Engine HP and Top Speed (mph).
You might never have to drive a new car up to 130mph or use all of its 300hp, but marketing gurus make you believe you actually need all of that. Same things apply to electrons and CPUs. Intel and others are making *amazing* past 2ghz chips, which sounds great, doesn't it? When something seems too good to be true, it probably is. Bar none.
When I said that it was useless trying to make a point regarding the childish mhz wars constantly being developed around here, is because I am not trying to convince anyone in particular, just giving my opinion to those who might find it useful or even ludicrous. I respect others who think my comments are totally wrong. But since some around here take things too personal, I might as well just don't cross that line and return to simpler less passionate discussions.
Applenut, regarding that "BS" thing, it was you who judged my mhz comment as such in the first place; no offense but I just wanted to draw your attention to that.
Wise tip to all: flaming others for being wrong, only burns yourself.
I guess I am just too old to try to fit in the discussions here. For that I apologize and will try to go back to "lurking" and enjoying the otherwise positive attitude found among most of you. Cheer up guys and have lots of fun learning and becoming productive citizens while expanding and enhancing bit by bit the Mac user family.
.....and one more thing.... :cool:
900, 2x1000, 2100 G4 soon
(I have never been right before, I hope I am at least close this time)
<strong>
Regarding Mhz for scientific/rendering/number crunching...most current generation processors have dedicated hard wired registers and instructions sets (read: altivec on the Mac side) that take care of that without the CPU core and its mhz rating sweating too much. Example MAYA and Mathematica, both Altivec enhanced: a 400Mhz G4 would be usable; a 600Mhz G3 well, sorry charlie. Get the idea? </strong><hr></blockquote>
No Charlie, I don't get the idea. Are you saying this as a Maya user? Have you used Maya on both platforms? Let me tell you this, I've used Maya on SGI, Windows and Mac and Mhz matters, A LOT. That's why SGI's been bleeding in the 3D market, the latest word is that they sold all their 3D patents to Microsoft.
Altivec isn't worth junk for 3D rendering. Because Altivec only supports 32 bit floating point operations, and serious 3D rendering (not real-time like Quake, but high-quality software rendering, like Maya) requires higher precision than that.
Instead we'll probably bicker about how the machines didn't live up to our expectations.
<strong>
No Charlie, I don't get the idea. Are you saying this as a Maya user? Have you used Maya on both platforms? Let me tell you this, I've used Maya on SGI, Windows and Mac and Mhz matters, A LOT. That's why SGI's been bleeding in the 3D market, the latest word is that they sold all their 3D patents to Microsoft.
Altivec isn't worth junk for 3D rendering. Because Altivec only supports 32 bit floating point operations, and serious 3D rendering (not real-time like Quake, but high-quality software rendering, like Maya) requires higher precision than that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are very right timortis. The 600 mhz G3 would be WAY faster at raytracing than the 400 mhz G4. Altivec simply doesn't accelerate raytracing. And this is true for both Maya, FormZ, Cinema 4d etc.
When apple shows bakeoffs on maya or cinema4D on a G4, the rendering tasks are most about the mapping and some postrendering effects, that the Altivec engine actually CAN accelerate. But these showoffs doesn't match real-life usage.
this is explained on the cinema4D webpage.
ap
One thing I don't get. If Apple is only pushing the Power Macs to 1GHz, why a release them after MWSF? The Power Macs were very conspicious by their absence at MWSF, so all eyes are really on them now. Kinda defeats the purpose of a 'quiet' release doesn't it?
(hmmm...did I just say 'only 1Ghz'? Wow, I really have been letting my imagination get the best of me.)
<strong>budz420 & sc_markt :
You are aware of a company called Motorola are you not? You are aware that in 12+ months time they have moved us a whopping 134MHz faster. That's it. No more. In 12 months. 134MHz.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What's that warning on an investment prospectus?
"Past performance is not indicative of future returns."
Whatever happens will happen. It won't effect me, because I don't have the money to buy one.
<strong>
"Past performance is not indicative of future returns."
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unless you are dealing with Motorola...
[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]
[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>
[QB]rickag
Member
Posts: 108
From: Arlington, Tx
\t posted 12-07-2001 08:50 AM Â*Â*Â* Â*Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Â*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Eskimo
Then, just based on The Register's initial article(based on an email) the G5 couldn't be ready to even ship to Apple before middle to late Jan.
I'm hoping for Apollo manufactured using HiP7(0.13µ and SOI) and DDRsram
I'm expecting Apollo manufactured w/ SOI and the same 133MHz bus
regardless, I'll be buying in Jan.rickag
Member
Posts: 108
From: Arlington, Tx
\t posted 01-08-2002 02:29 PM Â*Â*Â* Â*Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*Â*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mactivist
I hope your right and it occurs quickly. Just a note, see link below.
News Release - 9-Apr-2001
<a href="http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=mot&script=411&layout=-6&item_id=164832"; target="_blank">http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_sit e.zhtml?ticker=mot&script=411&layout=-6&item_id=164832</a>
"In addition, Motorola offers specialized features such as Silicon on Insulator (SOI)"
"Motorola is currently running embedded microprocessor cores on this advanced 0.13 micron process. Production is expected to begin in second quarter of this year in MOS13, Motorola's most advanced 8-inch facility in Austin, Texas."
This means that Motorola has @ least 8 months manufacturing experience making products with HiP7.
That's why when the Motorola rep was quoted as saying the next G4 would have SOI on a 0.18µ die, I was somewhat chagrined.
I still believe the next update will be Feb. using SOI, but not 0.13µ. Then Apollo will follow @ MWNY in July? on the 0.13µ die and maybe, if we're lucky DDRsDram(I still don't expect this until the G5 arrives in late 2002 early 2003)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Adendum:
I lied, maybe I'll just buy a G3 upgrade card for my 8100 and if still available a graphics card and wait. If the 733MHz on a 133MHz bus remains as the low end that doesn't justify buying at this time.
[quote]<strong>Why did the Mhz wars become so wildly (boring) publicized ever since the first PCs were introduced a couple of decades ago? Some of these boards members weren't even born back in the era of Z80, 6052, 8086, etc... most cpu chips performed the same basic functions but the only way to rate them was via their on board memory and instructions set capability. Speed was pretty much a non issue back then. All of a sudden speed records were being broken!!! A HUGE LEAP, someone had introduced a cpu capable of 8mhz!!!! dang, that was fast. So chip suppliers began to market their silicone the same way the auto industry does: Engine HP and Top Speed (mph).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes and no. I remember Apple crowing when the Apple ][e shattered the MHz barrier with the 65C02, which clocked at a blazing 1.1MHz.Then again, that might be because I had a //c, which also shipped with that processor.
Maybe Apple should bring Rockwell back on board as a chip supplier?
Those looking to buy a Power Mac...start looking around at who has dual 800's cause after next week they are going to be a good buy. I have a feeling we are at 133MHz bus and SDRAM for a little while longer... <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>Bill M. wrote:
I remember Apple crowing when the Apple ][e shattered the MHz barrier with the 65C02, which clocked at a blazing 1.1MHz.Then again, that might be because I had a //c, which also shipped with that processor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Amorph, the ][e and the //c had different processors. I think the //c had 4 extra machine language commands built it, but no one used them because they didn't speed anything up and software that did use them couldn't run on the ][e (because it was a different chip). They were only slightly different, but I believe they had diffenent names.
<strong>My last rant, I promise.
Mhz are important, yes... but not *the* most important thing while judging performance of a certain computer for a particular task. By the way, to all who say that cpu rating makes for a better gaming system, well, no comment. All the current (and 3 generations back) GPU cards take care of the actual gaming stuff like rendering and so on, leaving the CPU mostly free for more mundane tasks like keeping track of i/o (joysticks/keyboard) and other less intricate things. Even audio is done off cpu now.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh, no. Don't believe me? Then ask John Carmack. Mhz does matter for games. If it didn't then the huge fps discrepancies between Macs and PCs for UT and Q3 wouldn't exist. Throughout the last few years in which PC gaming has seen a huge rise, one general trend has been observed. The latest gen video card of it's time was always cpu limited. In other words the CPU (on both sides of the fence) has been the limiting factor in higher fps numbers. The GPU industry has stayed ahead of the curve of CPU manufacturers by generally releasing next gen GPUs with a lot of headroom. So how does one explain the discrepancy in time demo fps between a PC and a Mac each with an identical GeForce3? It's definitely not the drivers. Drivers wouldn't explain that large of a difference. The fact is that P4s and Athlons use a lot more of the GF3's headroom than a Mac.
As for processor performance in general, you can't argue that Macs get the work done just as fast anymore. Why? OSX. I don't care if you're on a Dual 800, it's simply not as snappy as OS 9 on that same machine. And as you head down the mac product line it only gets worse. Why do you think everyone wants the mythical Raycer chip so badly? It's because Quartz is a dog on the current hardware. But from here on out, OS X is supposed to be the default OS. Has XP had the same effect? No, in fact its faster. Especially considering you can turn all the eye candy off. But the basic finder in XP is faster with each hardware rev. This is Apple's big problem. X really slows down the current hardware. XP doesn't. And XP is running on chips that aren't going to stop scaling in Mhz any time soon. MS hit the ground running with their new OS. Apple just hit the ground...hard.
Myself and many others use Macs because of the interface. It's just much more refined and I get stuff done faster. OS 9 was so good that despite the fact it currently runs on slower hardware, it's interface is still faster than XP. But if that no longer holds true because we're falling behind and XP is getting faster, then this reasoning doesn't hold true any longer.
My next computer will definitely be a Mac again, there's no question. This hasn't become a huge problem yet. But after over 4 years of remaining in a relative holding pattern, the trend doesn't look good.
The big question for everyone is: "Is the PowerMac of today much faster than the one I bought 3 years ago?" Unfortunately due to Moto, the answer is no. An 866 isn't linearly faster than an old 500, so it's not that huge of a jump. Then factor in the slowness of Quartz, and you've got a really big dillema.
<strong>Well KidRed, more and more 'sources' are pointing to some sort of 'quiet' speedbump next week. There goes my 'promo' theory. I still say it won't happpen 'til after Feb 1 (but then, I also like the Ravens over the Steelers).
One thing I don't get. If Apple is only pushing the Power Macs to 1GHz, why a release them after MWSF? The Power Macs were very conspicious by their absence at MWSF, so all eyes are really on them now. Kinda defeats the purpose of a 'quiet' release doesn't it?
(hmmm...did I just say 'only 1Ghz'? Wow, I really have been letting my imagination get the best of me.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
What if Steve thought the towers would be ready and raised the show time by 1/2 hour to 2 1/2 hours. Then was told, they won't be ready. Maybe that's why it was changed back to 2 hours and we got no towers? Wasn't the promo pushed back to Jan 31st around the same time?
I seriously believe if we were only getting a small speed bump, they wouldv'e been released by now. This latest 'source' sells macs and is going by what his boss told him. He seemed very 'giddy' and confident. That's something I can put faith in, until proven otherwise. I do think we will be over 1.0ghz tho.