Not to make this a console vs. pc gaming debate and staying on the topic of the pros and cons of a GE version of the Imac I will say this:
The PC/MAC experience allows a programmer to create greater depth of play, larger environments and a decidedly more immersive environment than a console ever can. This is not to say that consoles don't have great games, however, the games are not nor will they ever be as immersive as those of the personal computer. This is only because of the one dimensional nature and time within which the hardware of a console becomes obsolete.
What this means: The GE version of the iMac were Apple to put one out which they won't, gives the consumer a bang up personal computing experience as well as a capable though not a top of the line gaming experience. No one is buying the iMac for games at this time...great add on, but wouldn't it be nice if for a couple hundred more bucks one could buy the iMac with a video card for which companies would be aiming their games at for some time to come? The current hardware will not allow the consumer to play those games that are coming out in the next 6 - 8 months (UT2 and C&C Renegade) at resonable levels of resolution and FPS. The GF 2MX doesn't cut it. It does fine for the digital hub, but again wouldn't it be nice if Apple made gaming a part of the digital hub environment?
As for product price entry points the ones I outlined aren't far fetched for a 6 to 8 month time horizon. Apple just needs to remember that we like games as much as we like our cameras.
[quote]The GeF2MX in the iMac is a Ti-400 model. It's no GeF3, but it is hardly dated.<hr></blockquote>
A GF2MX Ti 400? That's a new one. I think you mean an MX400.
The iMac is not a gamers machine and can't be. The Mac is not a gamers machine and it can't be. Like it was said before, gamers are a niche market. Only about 5% of the PC market is composed of hardcore gamers...and take 5% of 3% and you get a uhhh...very small number.
Macs are not gamers machines for these reasons:
A. Not very many PC games come out for the Mac. Some of the better ones do, but a lot are never ported even after a year or so.
B. Gaming hardware is very sparse on the mac. We have what, 3 modern gaming cards? And the only sound card made with gamers in mind on the Mac is the horribly crappily drivered SB Live...and it's $100. For $100 you can get an Audigy with a few games bundled.
C. Cost: As Fran stated, spending $1800+ on a gaming machine is kind of weird, especially for one with such limiting features. Hardware is cheap on the PC side, which makes it very attractive for gaming.
Now add the drawbacks of using an iMac:
A. The iMac is small. Will not fit a GF4 Ti. Those things are monsters and put out a ton of heat.
B. The iMac is very limited expandability-wise. Uses SODIMMS, no PCI slots, no extra drive bays, internal or external.
C. LCD screens are not gaming screens, and using a CRT is not an option by any means for an iMac.
A gaming iMac will not appeal to many PC gamers, and not to many Mac gamers either. Most would rather buy a G4 733 for $~1200, add a good 17" CRT, and maybe a decent video card.
Oh, and Fran, a G3 500 + 16MB Rage 128 is just not working for any serious gamer. That's pretty similiar to my set up and let me tell you it sucks. Even with all eye candy turned off I can barely get playable framerates on my G4 400 + Rage 128.
I disagree with you one one point...that LCD's aren't for gaming. I spent all weekend playing Return to Wolf, C&C Renegade and Counterstrike on a beautiful 17" Samsung LCD...Good God, it was brilliant, the colors were on, the thing was as bright as day and wow!
How much of a niche was there for the Dalmation CRT? The 700mhz CRT was a SE (special edition)and that didn't sell very well. All I am saying is that as this model progresses (iMac 2) there will be the need to play with the specs. When that time comes it wouldn't hurt Apple to have 3 lines based on three potential uses one with a bang up video card in it and call it the GE.
Very few people, relative to the total customer base, buy computers for games, period. On the other hand, most people play games on the computers they buy, and the overwhelming majority of those are casual gamers. The iMac is a more than capable gaming machine for the majority of people. It's also better equipped than the baseline machine that most game developers try to target, because there aren't nearly enough hardcore gamers with the latest and greatest to pay for the multi-million dollar costs of modern game development.
I think a boost to a GeForce4MX is a pretty obvious enhancement, although I don't know if it'll appear too soon given that the iMac apparently has very little wiggle room as far as internal heat sources are concerned. The non-user-accessible RAM has to be coated with thermal paste to prevent the unit from overheating!
Remember, NV-17 is a pretty crafty engineering feat on nVidia's part: It doubles as a budget GF4 and as a high-end laptop solution. To me that suggests that they made it with heat/energy consumption and cost in mind. We could probably look for it in an imac within a year since it's power characteristics are supposedly better, and it's cost will only drop.
Amorph is right about the engineering constraints. Obviously, Apple spent a long time ironing out the design for mass production. (Nevermind his Steveness's RDF garden and sunflower last minute redesign spin) That's months of work there. At some point before NV-17 would meet their cost/availability requirements, Apple had to set some of the design parameters or they just wouldn't be able to move on. They probably just went to nVidia and said what've you got right now, that's going to be plentiful and cheap, and that meets these requirements NOW? nVidia answers: GF2MX, heck we can give you a slightly hotter version, but that's all we can guarantee.
I bet there are NV-17 versions in development right now. As are any number of tweaks to the internal layout -- maybe two external dimms, certainly a 133Mhz bus, faster G4's. I'm betting the first iMac rev that sees 133Mhz FSB probably moves both dimms to the user accessible side of the Mobo. All these things take time, and the only reason you don't see them on iMacs right away is that they had to make a decision and stick to it, if they ever wanted to get the thing into mass production.
[quote]Oh, and Fran, a G3 500 + 16MB Rage 128 is just not working for any serious gamer. That's pretty similiar to my set up and let me tell you it sucks. Even with all eye candy turned off I can barely get playable framerates on my G4 400 + Rage 128.<hr></blockquote>
Interesting. The snow iMac we have is a G3/500 with a 16 MB video card and it plays most of the current games out there without an issue. The same is true with my PowerBook G3/500 with it's 8 MB video card. I can play the games if I want to. I've played Elite Force without an issue on my PowerBook. Q3 and UT work fine. Sure, some maps might get choppy, but for 95% of the game, it's great.
The big test for me will be RTCW (when is that going to ship, btw?)
[quote]The snow iMac we have is a G3/500 with a 16 MB video card and it plays most of the current games out there without an issue.<hr></blockquote>
Yeah, it will play but it slows down a lot when you need speed most?intense action firefights. I find this especially annoying playing online using Urban Terror.
Me: "Aha, I see that dude! Another free frag for me!"
*muzzle flash slows system down to 15fps, guy jumps around and nails 5 headshots*
I have an iMac 400, and an iMac 600 and anybody who says the iMac is a great gaming machine is either lying or has a skewed perception of what "great gaming" means. From what I have heard the new iMac is a quantum leap better at games then the old ones, which is good to know.
But lets face it, when it comes to 3D games like Quake 3, and Unreal Tournament even the Powermacs are slow RELATIVE to PCs. I don't know why this is but I have some speculations about what might be causing this, but I think part of it is that the Megahertz Myth isn't as much of a myth as Apple wants us to believe. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>But lets face it, when it comes to 3D games like Quake 3, and Unreal Tournament even the Powermacs are slow RELATIVE to PCs. I don't know why this is but I have some speculations about what might be causing this, but I think part of it is that the Megahertz Myth isn't as much of a myth as Apple wants us to believe. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.apple.com/g4/myth/"; target="_blank">The Megahertz Myth</a> is perfectly valid. as the 1Ghz PPC 7450 can rip the heart out of any 80886 or K7 without even flinching. and more than one of them might as well be a lynch mob. so what is it that makes Macs slower than PCs? it's the RAM bus.
Unlike on the wintel side. where motherboards have been running off of DDR 2400 DRAM DIMMs for years now. my cutting edge QuickSilver G4 is still just grasping the concept of PC133 DRAM DIMMs . meanwhile. Apple has actually taunted us with DDR 2400 DRAM in the newest G4s. but as CPU cache ! when everyone knows your supposed to use _SRAM_ for that.
Probably the most fundamental problem(Game related or otherwise), aside from the fact of that it isn't all Apple's fault. is that virtually no software whatsoever is properly optomized for multiprocessing, vector co-processors(Altivec/Velocity engine) or OS X. the fact of that nearly all games nowadays are wintel ports(Plus SSE, MMX, 3DNow! and multiple Celerons aren't even supported hardly ever on the wintel side <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> ). and I can count the programs built natively in cocoa and hardcoded for MP and VPUs from conception on one hand.
Although it can be corrected by the application of a Fibre Channel or SCSI(No one makes true FireWire drives. just ATA and SCSI bridge chips) card. all of Apple's machines still ship with Ultra ATA. as opposed to the faster ATA/133.
Also. although it slows it down very slightly. Macs have always had lousy audio subsystems since about when Wing Commander IV came out. and the horrific demise of the Mac Sound Blaster Live! recently doesn't bode well for this problem.
Finally. my QuickSilver G4 has the absurd measure of 64-Bit/33Mhz PCI slots instead of full 64-Bit/66Mhz PCI slots. which is directly inverse to those used in the Blue and White G3. which used 32-Bit/66Mhz PCI slots. thus negating cards intended for the older machine. such as my Formac ProFormance III+ graphics card. which is now running my second monitor by squeezing data through at a mere 32-Bits/33Mhz.
In a nutshell. Motorola has been doing their job quite well(If on a bit of a tight budget). but Apple has been skimping on motherboard chipsets. so don't believe <a href="http://www.apple.com/g4/myth/"; target="_blank">the Megahertz Myth</a>. it's all Apple's fault.
[quote]The Megahertz Myth is perfectly valid. as the 1Ghz PPC 7450 can rip the heart out of any 80886 or K7 without even flinching. and more than one of them might as well be a lynch mob.<hr></blockquote>
it's vaild to a point. but the 1Ghz G4 ain't faster than a 2.2Ghz P4. or a Athlon 2000XP
[quote]so what is it that makes Macs slower than PCs? it's the RAM bus.<hr></blockquote>
hardly the only reason
[quote]is that virtually no software whatsoever is properly optomized for multiprocessing, vector co-processors(Altivec/Velocity engine) or OS X.<hr></blockquote>
uh.. the apps that could actually use MP and altivec effectivly usual are. You don't need office to be altivec optimized and MP aware from the start. But the apps that do need it are.
FCP
QT
Cleaner
Photoshop
After Effects
Cinema 4D
Lightwave
etc.
[quote]and I can count the programs built natively in cocoa and hardcoded for MP and VPUs from conception on one hand.<hr></blockquote>
cocoa means **** . a well written carbon app will run the same speed as a cocoa app.
and you must have some freak hands because there are many apps optimized for MP and altivec
[quote]
Although it can be corrected by the application of a Fibre Channel or SCSI(No one makes true FireWire drives. just ATA and SCSI bridge chips) card. all of Apple's machines still ship with Ultra ATA. as opposed to the faster ATA/133.<hr></blockquote>
and gyess what? the fastest ATA drives only transfer at 45MB/sec. well within the limits of ATA/66
[quote]
Finally. my QuickSilver G4 has the absurd measure of 64-Bit/33Mhz PCI slots instead of full 64-Bit/66Mhz PCI slots. which is directly inverse to those used in the Blue and White G3. which used 32-Bit/66Mhz PCI slots. thus negating cards intended for the older machine. such as my Formac ProFormance III+ graphics card. which is now running my second monitor by squeezing data through at a mere 32-Bits/33Mhz.<hr></blockquote>
the Blue and White G4 had aa SINGLE 32 bit 66Mhz slot which was for graphics. The G4s have an AGP slot to serve that purpose.
<strong>In a nutshell. Motorola has been doing their job quite well(If on a bit of a tight budget). but Apple has been skimping on motherboard chipsets. so don't believe <a href="http://www.apple.com/g4/myth/"; target="_blank">the Megahertz Myth</a>. it's all Apple's fault.</strong><hr></blockquote>Mot's current chips are limited to a 133Mhz bus. Apple can't just drop faster RAM or DDR RAM into a motherboard when Mot's chips don't support it.
<strong>Mot's current chips are limited to a 133Mhz bus. Apple can't just drop faster RAM or DDR RAM into a motherboard when Mot's chips don't support it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>it's vaild to a point. but the 1Ghz G4 ain't faster than a 2.2Ghz P4. or a Athlon 2000XP</strong><hr></blockquote>
I doubt it. the G4 is roughly equal with integer and floating point calculations. and if the Altivec unit is given a chance to shine. it beats them handily.
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>You don't need office to be altivec optimized and MP aware from the start.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmm. perhaps if Office X's transparency and scrolling code were snapped up a bit?
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>uh.. the apps that could actually use MP and altivec effectivly usual are. You don't need office to be altivec optimized and MP aware from the start. But the apps that do need it are.
FCP
QT
Cleaner
Photoshop
After Effects
Cinema 4D
Lightwave
etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Can you say: badly tacked on plugin? I knew you could. all these Apps have only the most basic of optimizations(except for maybe Cleaner's CODEC routines). compare their tiny smidgeon of vector code with their great FPU optimizations. and yes. being Altivec optimized and MP aware from the start helps _quite_ a bit. just look at the way Serious Sam benefits from clever use of Intel's and AMD's VPUs. or for a more extreme example. look at the microcoding(Binary programming) done on consoles and supercomputers. I'm sure that microcoding some of the more basic routines in a game engine for Altivec would give the Mac quite a leg up.'
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>and gyess what? the fastest ATA drives only transfer at 45MB/sec. well within the limits of ATA/66</strong><hr></blockquote>
Lets add a slave drive? Oooops!
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>the Blue and White G4 had aa SINGLE 32 bit 66Mhz slot which was for graphics. The G4s have an AGP slot to serve that purpose.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know that. My AGP slot has a preloaded GF2MX in it. the ProFormance III+ is from my old computer. and I installed it in one of the PCI slots of my G4 to drive a second monitor. what I was complaining about is the fact of that if Apple had spent just a tiny bit more money. my ProFormance III+ would be as happy in my G4 is it would be in a Blue and White G3. and for your information. although Apple just used it as a graphics slot in the G3. there are numerous other kinds of 32-Bit/66Mhz PCI cards out thare too. and 64-Bit/66Mhz cards are about a third faster than 32-Bit/66Mhz or 64-Bit/33Mhz cards.
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>those are just a sample list of the altivec AND MP optimized apps available today. Count that on your single hand </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeesh. what I said was:
[quote]and I can count the programs built natively in cocoa and hardcoded for MP and VPUs from conception on one hand.<hr></blockquote>
Especially note the "built natively in cocoa" and "from conception" parts. every single one of those programs you mentioned(Except for FileMaker's Server section) was ported from something else.
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>Mot's current chips are limited to a 133Mhz bus. Apple can't just drop faster RAM or DDR RAM into a motherboard when Mot's chips don't support it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>thanks, I forgot to mention that</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whooops! my mistake. <a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/taxonomy.jsp?nodeId=01M98653"; target="_blank">your quite right</a>. I guess Motorola _is_ to blame for the lousy RAM bus in recent Macs to at least some degree(Allthough I wonder about the steadfastness of those rules. as Met@box managed to squeeze 2MB of backside cache onto their JoeCard G4 upgrades?).
I think Apple should've done a GF4 MX in the iMacs and then GF4 Ti in the PowerMacs. Since there are 3 models each here is what you could do:
low-end iMac gets GF4 MX 420
mid-end iMac gets GF4 MX 440
high-end iMac gets GF4 MX 440
low-end PowerMac gets GF4 Ti 4200
mid-end PowerMac gets GF4 Ti 4400
high-end PowerMac gets GF4 Ti 4600
Apple should give me the GF4 Ti card for the troubles with this stupid crap GF4 MX that looks like its gonna kill the screen or something. Seriously I have put up with a lot of problems from Apple and they haven't done jack in the past.
<strong>I think Apple should've done a GF4 MX in the iMacs and then GF4 Ti in the PowerMacs. Since there are 3 models each here is what you could do:
low-end iMac gets GF4 MX 420
mid-end iMac gets GF4 MX 440
high-end iMac gets GF4 MX 440
low-end PowerMac gets GF4 Ti 4200
mid-end PowerMac gets GF4 Ti 4400
high-end PowerMac gets GF4 Ti 4600</strong><hr></blockquote>
The PowerMac is upgradable. as for the iMac. I think Apple should just make a special AGP card. only have it be easy slide in/out and fully encased like a giant PCMCIA card. this would solve the "PCI/AGP cards are too difficult for the average joe(As well as just being a genuine pain for people like me too)" argument against an upgradable iMac.
[quote]I doubt it. the G4 is roughly equal with integer and floating point calculations. and if the Altivec unit is given a chance to shine. it beats them handily.<hr></blockquote>
I'm pretty sure the g4 sucks in integer performance and that the Athlon's FPU is much better than the g4. I'l try to get some numbers but if what you said was correct than the G4 would be as fast as those processors even without altivec which it is not. in fact without altivec the G4 compared to a new P4 sucks.
[quote]Can you say: badly tacked on plugin? I knew you could. all these Apps have only the most basic of optimizations(except for maybe Cleaner's CODEC routines).<hr></blockquote>
sorry, but that is completely wrong. FCP sees a 70% boost from dual processors and now has real time effects simply because of altivec. that's badly tacked on?
photoshop sees huge gains using altivec
Lightwave is heavily optimized for both
[quote]I'm sure that microcoding some of the more basic routines in a game engine for Altivec would give the Mac quite a leg up.'<hr></blockquote>
The OpenGL libraries already have altivec optimizations and some games are MP and even altivec optimized such as Myth 3.
[quote]Lets add a slave drive? Oooops!<hr></blockquote>
ATA can only right to one drive at a time AFAIK.
[quote]Especially note the "built natively in cocoa" and "from conception" parts. every single one of those programs you mentioned(Except for FileMaker's Server section) was ported from something else.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]I doubt it. the G4 is roughly equal with integer and floating point calculations. and if the Altivec unit is given a chance to shine. it beats them handily.<hr></blockquote>
HEHE, that was a good one, tell me another <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Essentially, make it on par with powermacs, but sell it in the iMac form factor for lower cost. It would have everything the Powermacs did except expandability.
Too bad Apple will NEVER make an iMac geared towards gaming, but it's fun to masturbate with such ideas.
Comments
The PC/MAC experience allows a programmer to create greater depth of play, larger environments and a decidedly more immersive environment than a console ever can. This is not to say that consoles don't have great games, however, the games are not nor will they ever be as immersive as those of the personal computer. This is only because of the one dimensional nature and time within which the hardware of a console becomes obsolete.
What this means: The GE version of the iMac were Apple to put one out which they won't, gives the consumer a bang up personal computing experience as well as a capable though not a top of the line gaming experience. No one is buying the iMac for games at this time...great add on, but wouldn't it be nice if for a couple hundred more bucks one could buy the iMac with a video card for which companies would be aiming their games at for some time to come? The current hardware will not allow the consumer to play those games that are coming out in the next 6 - 8 months (UT2 and C&C Renegade) at resonable levels of resolution and FPS. The GF 2MX doesn't cut it. It does fine for the digital hub, but again wouldn't it be nice if Apple made gaming a part of the digital hub environment?
As for product price entry points the ones I outlined aren't far fetched for a 6 to 8 month time horizon. Apple just needs to remember that we like games as much as we like our cameras.
A GF2MX Ti 400? That's a new one.
The iMac is not a gamers machine and can't be. The Mac is not a gamers machine and it can't be. Like it was said before, gamers are a niche market. Only about 5% of the PC market is composed of hardcore gamers...and take 5% of 3% and you get a uhhh...very small number.
Macs are not gamers machines for these reasons:
A. Not very many PC games come out for the Mac. Some of the better ones do, but a lot are never ported even after a year or so.
B. Gaming hardware is very sparse on the mac. We have what, 3 modern gaming cards? And the only sound card made with gamers in mind on the Mac is the horribly crappily drivered SB Live...and it's $100. For $100 you can get an Audigy with a few games bundled.
C. Cost: As Fran stated, spending $1800+ on a gaming machine is kind of weird, especially for one with such limiting features. Hardware is cheap on the PC side, which makes it very attractive for gaming.
Now add the drawbacks of using an iMac:
A. The iMac is small. Will not fit a GF4 Ti. Those things are monsters and put out a ton of heat.
B. The iMac is very limited expandability-wise. Uses SODIMMS, no PCI slots, no extra drive bays, internal or external.
C. LCD screens are not gaming screens, and using a CRT is not an option by any means for an iMac.
A gaming iMac will not appeal to many PC gamers, and not to many Mac gamers either. Most would rather buy a G4 733 for $~1200, add a good 17" CRT, and maybe a decent video card.
Oh, and Fran, a G3 500 + 16MB Rage 128 is just not working for any serious gamer. That's pretty similiar to my set up and let me tell you it sucks. Even with all eye candy turned off I can barely get playable framerates on my G4 400 + Rage 128.
How much of a niche was there for the Dalmation CRT? The 700mhz CRT was a SE (special edition)and that didn't sell very well. All I am saying is that as this model progresses (iMac 2) there will be the need to play with the specs. When that time comes it wouldn't hurt Apple to have 3 lines based on three potential uses one with a bang up video card in it and call it the GE.
I think a boost to a GeForce4MX is a pretty obvious enhancement, although I don't know if it'll appear too soon given that the iMac apparently has very little wiggle room as far as internal heat sources are concerned. The non-user-accessible RAM has to be coated with thermal paste to prevent the unit from overheating!
[ 02-27-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
Amorph is right about the engineering constraints. Obviously, Apple spent a long time ironing out the design for mass production. (Nevermind his Steveness's RDF garden and sunflower last minute redesign spin) That's months of work there. At some point before NV-17 would meet their cost/availability requirements, Apple had to set some of the design parameters or they just wouldn't be able to move on. They probably just went to nVidia and said what've you got right now, that's going to be plentiful and cheap, and that meets these requirements NOW? nVidia answers: GF2MX, heck we can give you a slightly hotter version, but that's all we can guarantee.
I bet there are NV-17 versions in development right now. As are any number of tweaks to the internal layout -- maybe two external dimms, certainly a 133Mhz bus, faster G4's. I'm betting the first iMac rev that sees 133Mhz FSB probably moves both dimms to the user accessible side of the Mobo. All these things take time, and the only reason you don't see them on iMacs right away is that they had to make a decision and stick to it, if they ever wanted to get the thing into mass production.
Interesting. The snow iMac we have is a G3/500 with a 16 MB video card and it plays most of the current games out there without an issue. The same is true with my PowerBook G3/500 with it's 8 MB video card. I can play the games if I want to. I've played Elite Force without an issue on my PowerBook. Q3 and UT work fine. Sure, some maps might get choppy, but for 95% of the game, it's great.
The big test for me will be RTCW (when is that going to ship, btw?)
Yeah, it will play but it slows down a lot when you need speed most?intense action firefights. I find this especially annoying playing online using Urban Terror.
Me: "Aha, I see that dude! Another free frag for me!"
*muzzle flash slows system down to 15fps, guy jumps around and nails 5 headshots*
But lets face it, when it comes to 3D games like Quake 3, and Unreal Tournament even the Powermacs are slow RELATIVE to PCs. I don't know why this is but I have some speculations about what might be causing this, but I think part of it is that the Megahertz Myth isn't as much of a myth as Apple wants us to believe. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>But lets face it, when it comes to 3D games like Quake 3, and Unreal Tournament even the Powermacs are slow RELATIVE to PCs. I don't know why this is but I have some speculations about what might be causing this, but I think part of it is that the Megahertz Myth isn't as much of a myth as Apple wants us to believe. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.apple.com/g4/myth/"; target="_blank">The Megahertz Myth</a> is perfectly valid. as the 1Ghz PPC 7450 can rip the heart out of any 80886 or K7 without even flinching. and more than one of them might as well be a lynch mob. so what is it that makes Macs slower than PCs? it's the RAM bus.
Unlike on the wintel side. where motherboards have been running off of DDR 2400 DRAM DIMMs for years now. my cutting edge QuickSilver G4 is still just grasping the concept of PC133 DRAM DIMMs
Probably the most fundamental problem(Game related or otherwise), aside from the fact of that it isn't all Apple's fault. is that virtually no software whatsoever is properly optomized for multiprocessing, vector co-processors(Altivec/Velocity engine) or OS X. the fact of that nearly all games nowadays are wintel ports(Plus SSE, MMX, 3DNow! and multiple Celerons aren't even supported hardly ever on the wintel side <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> ). and I can count the programs built natively in cocoa and hardcoded for MP and VPUs from conception on one hand.
Although it can be corrected by the application of a Fibre Channel or SCSI(No one makes true FireWire drives. just ATA and SCSI bridge chips) card. all of Apple's machines still ship with Ultra ATA. as opposed to the faster ATA/133.
Also. although it slows it down very slightly. Macs have always had lousy audio subsystems since about when Wing Commander IV came out. and the horrific demise of the Mac Sound Blaster Live! recently doesn't bode well for this problem.
Finally. my QuickSilver G4 has the absurd measure of 64-Bit/33Mhz PCI slots instead of full 64-Bit/66Mhz PCI slots. which is directly inverse to those used in the Blue and White G3. which used 32-Bit/66Mhz PCI slots. thus negating cards intended for the older machine. such as my Formac ProFormance III+ graphics card. which is now running my second monitor by squeezing data through at a mere 32-Bits/33Mhz.
In a nutshell. Motorola has been doing their job quite well(If on a bit of a tight budget). but Apple has been skimping on motherboard chipsets. so don't believe <a href="http://www.apple.com/g4/myth/"; target="_blank">the Megahertz Myth</a>. it's all Apple's fault.
Eric,
[ 03-03-2002: Message edited by: Eric D.V.H ]</p>
it's vaild to a point. but the 1Ghz G4 ain't faster than a 2.2Ghz P4. or a Athlon 2000XP
[quote]so what is it that makes Macs slower than PCs? it's the RAM bus.<hr></blockquote>
hardly the only reason
[quote]is that virtually no software whatsoever is properly optomized for multiprocessing, vector co-processors(Altivec/Velocity engine) or OS X.<hr></blockquote>
uh.. the apps that could actually use MP and altivec effectivly usual are. You don't need office to be altivec optimized and MP aware from the start. But the apps that do need it are.
FCP
QT
Cleaner
Photoshop
After Effects
Cinema 4D
Lightwave
etc.
[quote]and I can count the programs built natively in cocoa and hardcoded for MP and VPUs from conception on one hand.<hr></blockquote>
cocoa means **** . a well written carbon app will run the same speed as a cocoa app.
and you must have some freak hands because there are many apps optimized for MP and altivec
[quote]
Although it can be corrected by the application of a Fibre Channel or SCSI(No one makes true FireWire drives. just ATA and SCSI bridge chips) card. all of Apple's machines still ship with Ultra ATA. as opposed to the faster ATA/133.<hr></blockquote>
and gyess what? the fastest ATA drives only transfer at 45MB/sec. well within the limits of ATA/66
[quote]
Finally. my QuickSilver G4 has the absurd measure of 64-Bit/33Mhz PCI slots instead of full 64-Bit/66Mhz PCI slots. which is directly inverse to those used in the Blue and White G3. which used 32-Bit/66Mhz PCI slots. thus negating cards intended for the older machine. such as my Formac ProFormance III+ graphics card. which is now running my second monitor by squeezing data through at a mere 32-Bits/33Mhz.<hr></blockquote>
the Blue and White G4 had aa SINGLE 32 bit 66Mhz slot which was for graphics. The G4s have an AGP slot to serve that purpose.
get your facts straight
Â*\tDVD Studio Pro
Â*\tDisk Burner
Â*\tFinal Cut Pro
Â*\tiMovie 2
Â*\tiTunes 2
Â*\tMac OS X
Â*\tQuicktime
Â*\tWebObjects
Adobe\tAfter Effects
Â*\tPremiere 6
Â*\tPhotoshop 5.5-6
Absoft\tPro Fortran
Active Concepts\tFunnel Web
Alias|Wavefront\tMaya
Artel\tBoris Series (all)
Asarte\tDVDirector
Bitheadz\tUnity
Buena Software\tEffects Pack
Â*\tAltiVec Effect
Cassady & Greene\tSoundJam MP Plus
DCES\tRC-5
Digital Origin\tEditDV
Discreet Logic\tCombustion
Electric Rain\tSwift 3D
Filemaker\tFilemaker Pro
Heuris\tMPEG Power Pro
id software\tQuake
Maxon\tCinema 4DXL 6
Â*\tBody Paint 3D
Media 100\tMedia Cleaner Pro
Â*\tCineStream
Metrowerks\tCodeWarrior 5
MOTU\tAltiVerb
Â*\tDigital Performer
Netscape\tCommunicator 6
Propellerhead\tReason
Qbeo\tPhotoGenetics 2
Â*\tVideoGenetics 1
Qdesign\tMusic Codec 2.1
Sorenson\tSorenson Video
StarNine\tWebStar 4.2
Steinberg\tCubase VST
Strata\tStudio 3D Pro
Terran\tMedia Cleaner Pro
Terra Soft Solutions Â*\t
Yellow Dog Linux
Toon Boom\t
Toon Boom Studio
Video Script\t
Video Script Pro
those are just a sample list of the altivec AND MP optimized apps available today. Count that on your single hand
<strong>In a nutshell. Motorola has been doing their job quite well(If on a bit of a tight budget). but Apple has been skimping on motherboard chipsets. so don't believe <a href="http://www.apple.com/g4/myth/"; target="_blank">the Megahertz Myth</a>. it's all Apple's fault.</strong><hr></blockquote>Mot's current chips are limited to a 133Mhz bus. Apple can't just drop faster RAM or DDR RAM into a motherboard when Mot's chips don't support it.
<strong>Mot's current chips are limited to a 133Mhz bus. Apple can't just drop faster RAM or DDR RAM into a motherboard when Mot's chips don't support it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
thanks, I forgot to mention that
<strong>it's vaild to a point. but the 1Ghz G4 ain't faster than a 2.2Ghz P4. or a Athlon 2000XP</strong><hr></blockquote>
I doubt it. the G4 is roughly equal with integer and floating point calculations. and if the Altivec unit is given a chance to shine. it beats them handily.
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>You don't need office to be altivec optimized and MP aware from the start.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmm. perhaps if Office X's transparency and scrolling code were snapped up a bit?
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>uh.. the apps that could actually use MP and altivec effectivly usual are. You don't need office to be altivec optimized and MP aware from the start. But the apps that do need it are.
FCP
QT
Cleaner
Photoshop
After Effects
Cinema 4D
Lightwave
etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Can you say: badly tacked on plugin? I knew you could. all these Apps have only the most basic of optimizations(except for maybe Cleaner's CODEC routines). compare their tiny smidgeon of vector code with their great FPU optimizations. and yes. being Altivec optimized and MP aware from the start helps _quite_ a bit. just look at the way Serious Sam benefits from clever use of Intel's and AMD's VPUs. or for a more extreme example. look at the microcoding(Binary programming) done on consoles and supercomputers. I'm sure that microcoding some of the more basic routines in a game engine for Altivec would give the Mac quite a leg up.'
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>and gyess what? the fastest ATA drives only transfer at 45MB/sec. well within the limits of ATA/66</strong><hr></blockquote>
Lets add a slave drive? Oooops!
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>the Blue and White G4 had aa SINGLE 32 bit 66Mhz slot which was for graphics. The G4s have an AGP slot to serve that purpose.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know that. My AGP slot has a preloaded GF2MX in it. the ProFormance III+ is from my old computer. and I installed it in one of the PCI slots of my G4 to drive a second monitor. what I was complaining about is the fact of that if Apple had spent just a tiny bit more money. my ProFormance III+ would be as happy in my G4 is it would be in a Blue and White G3. and for your information. although Apple just used it as a graphics slot in the G3. there are numerous other kinds of 32-Bit/66Mhz PCI cards out thare too. and 64-Bit/66Mhz cards are about a third faster than 32-Bit/66Mhz or 64-Bit/33Mhz cards.
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>those are just a sample list of the altivec AND MP optimized apps available today. Count that on your single hand
Yeesh. what I said was:
[quote]and I can count the programs built natively in cocoa and hardcoded for MP and VPUs from conception on one hand.<hr></blockquote>
Especially note the "built natively in cocoa" and "from conception" parts. every single one of those programs you mentioned(Except for FileMaker's Server section) was ported from something else.
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>Mot's current chips are limited to a 133Mhz bus. Apple can't just drop faster RAM or DDR RAM into a motherboard when Mot's chips don't support it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>thanks, I forgot to mention that</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whooops! my mistake. <a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/taxonomy.jsp?nodeId=01M98653"; target="_blank">your quite right</a>. I guess Motorola _is_ to blame for the lousy RAM bus in recent Macs to at least some degree(Allthough I wonder about the steadfastness of those rules. as Met@box managed to squeeze 2MB of backside cache onto their JoeCard G4 upgrades?).
Eric
[ 03-03-2002: Message edited by: Eric D.V.H ]</p>
low-end iMac gets GF4 MX 420
mid-end iMac gets GF4 MX 440
high-end iMac gets GF4 MX 440
low-end PowerMac gets GF4 Ti 4200
mid-end PowerMac gets GF4 Ti 4400
high-end PowerMac gets GF4 Ti 4600
Apple should give me the GF4 Ti card for the troubles with this stupid crap GF4 MX that looks like its gonna kill the screen or something. Seriously I have put up with a lot of problems from Apple and they haven't done jack in the past.
<strong>I think Apple should've done a GF4 MX in the iMacs and then GF4 Ti in the PowerMacs. Since there are 3 models each here is what you could do:
low-end iMac gets GF4 MX 420
mid-end iMac gets GF4 MX 440
high-end iMac gets GF4 MX 440
low-end PowerMac gets GF4 Ti 4200
mid-end PowerMac gets GF4 Ti 4400
high-end PowerMac gets GF4 Ti 4600</strong><hr></blockquote>
The PowerMac is upgradable. as for the iMac. I think Apple should just make a special AGP card. only have it be easy slide in/out and fully encased like a giant PCMCIA card. this would solve the "PCI/AGP cards are too difficult for the average joe(As well as just being a genuine pain for people like me too)" argument against an upgradable iMac.
Eric,
applenut, remember when I said ATA-66 was good enough for most people?
What did you say?
"wah...not for me....wah"
I'm pretty sure the g4 sucks in integer performance and that the Athlon's FPU is much better than the g4. I'l try to get some numbers but if what you said was correct than the G4 would be as fast as those processors even without altivec which it is not. in fact without altivec the G4 compared to a new P4 sucks.
[quote]Can you say: badly tacked on plugin? I knew you could. all these Apps have only the most basic of optimizations(except for maybe Cleaner's CODEC routines).<hr></blockquote>
sorry, but that is completely wrong. FCP sees a 70% boost from dual processors and now has real time effects simply because of altivec. that's badly tacked on?
photoshop sees huge gains using altivec
Lightwave is heavily optimized for both
[quote]I'm sure that microcoding some of the more basic routines in a game engine for Altivec would give the Mac quite a leg up.'<hr></blockquote>
The OpenGL libraries already have altivec optimizations and some games are MP and even altivec optimized such as Myth 3.
[quote]Lets add a slave drive? Oooops!<hr></blockquote>
ATA can only right to one drive at a time AFAIK.
[quote]Especially note the "built natively in cocoa" and "from conception" parts. every single one of those programs you mentioned(Except for FileMaker's Server section) was ported from something else.<hr></blockquote>
what are you talking about?
what does that have to do with anything?
[ 03-03-2002: Message edited by: applenut ]</p>
HEHE, that was a good one, tell me another <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Spec it out like so:
17" LCD
CD-RW drive
1 GHz G4, 266+ MHz system bus.
GeForce 4 Titanium
Essentially, make it on par with powermacs, but sell it in the iMac form factor for lower cost. It would have everything the Powermacs did except expandability.
Too bad Apple will NEVER make an iMac geared towards gaming, but it's fun to masturbate with such ideas.