Bottom line: If you absolutely MUST have a machine with 14 8x PCIe slots, SLI (with both slots having full 16x bandwidth), two dual-core procs, two internal RAIDs, etc... then the Mac really isn't for you. Apple hasn't satisfied that end of the computing spectrum probably since the IIfx, and I honestly don't see them doing it again any time soon.
On a tangential note: I picked up a dual 1.8 from the Chandler Apple store yesterday, since they went on sale. It's not even close to being the current top end machine, and it's ridiculously fast... And that's before I sink another gig of ram & a 9800 pro into it. I rendered one of the example scenes that comes with Lightwave 8.0 on it. It takes about seven seconds a frame. My old 867MHz Powerbook took closer to a minute per frame... Good God that's nice. I'm not going to load any more software on it until I get my grubby little mits on a copy of Tigger. Can't wait to see how Photoshop does (even though I've only got 7.0...)
Well the machine you refer to is quite extreme, and I doubt it exists on any platform. But that still is no excuse for letting a professional lineup fall behind in the times constantly.
I know so many people that used to use a PowerMac that don't use Mac's at all any more. I also know a lot of people that were planning a return to the Mac after SJ, and IBM proclaimed 3GHz in a years time that were upset, and went back to higher powered PC's. I know PC users that wanted to switch to the PowerMac because they thought IBM was capable of helping Apples pro lineup look like better qualified workstations.
All these mediocre updates, set backs, and the length of time it takes to update the PowerMac was keeping them at arms length, and essentially has shoved them far enough away to keep them away until Apple can redeem itself over time, and a few updates. (wounds heal)
Most all of the things I come in here and complain/explain about are not spawned originally from my own thoughts, but from discussions about the possibility of Apple computer making an entrance into the pro workstation market between others, and myself. The general consensus is Apple just doesn't "stay" on the cutting edge of hardware technology as they once did, and just about all other computer manufacturers seem to do just that.
The thing that seems to keep Apple alive in the end is their great software, and a fanatical user base, but they too are always let down by hardware offerings, and wait for the "next great hardware update" that never comes.
That last sentence in a way sums up everything I said previously from the views of many onlookers.
Agreed. But, aren't the current G5's super fast anyway? Ignoring extras like pci-e and pro gpu's- are we just being a bit anxious over whats coming up next (mp's, gx's), when in reality the current speed of the Powermacs rival that of any PC equivalant, even at similar prices?
seems alot of folk are complaining about the speed of the Powermacs, when really that isn't the problem, but the fact that we haven't seen any major progress/updates for 2 years and are lacking those 'extras' that are becoming standard.
There have been times when Apple led the market, and times when it lagged. Apple was relatively late to the party with the G3, for instance, and then there's the G4, which started out just fine. I don't see anything particularly new with the G5. That's neither heartening nor depressing to me, just familiar.
The pro workstation market is relatively small (look at the sales of pro workstations—Suns, HPs, IBMs, SGIs—even in their heyday), and so the shrinkage of PowerMac sales could in fact be an indication that they're settling in to that market and ceding most of Apple's traditional pro markets to the iMac and the Powerbook and the mini. Even the Xserve, which allows less powerful and more portable clients to offload their heavy lifting, has probably had a negative impact on PowerMac sales. That leaves the workstation market, which to my knowledge has never come close to affording any single vendor anything close to 140k machines per quarter, let alone 200k. As of Tiger, the iMac will probably cannibalize some of those sales, now that it's a moderately powerful machine with a 64-bit-capable UNIX and an attractive price tag (and desktop footprint). If the mini spawns some upscale variants, the PowerMac will most likely cede the sub-$2k market entirely. Remember, to someone used to UNIX workstation prices, the top of the line PowerMac looks like a steal.
onlooker's is a special case, because the last time Macs were heavily used in 3D, the SGI Onyx was the ultimate render box. (That was some time ago.) 3D artists made the switch to PCs years ago, so they're already long since over workstation prices, and accustomed to PC prices. This market will be a hard sell for Apple: Even if they came out with a dual-3GHz machine tomorrow, they'd still lack pro GPUs, a number of software titles, and top-flight OpenGL performance. Time will tell, but I don't see how that situation will change any time soon.
While we're on the subject of advanced technology that people don't really need (, ), eSATA has already been obsoleted by SAS. Although I don't see Apple ever including either one in the Power Mac; you'll have to get it through a PCI card.
One of the main markets for the PM right now is the HDTV market. Jobs said this was the year of HD at MWSF and Apple delivered an excellent suite of pro audio and video apps at NAB. The only thing missing was the dual dual core 3 GHz G5. Also, 3 GHz was promised to be delivered a year ago and we're still waiting.
It'd be nice if Apple could make use of all the latest mobo tech but it can't without more advanced chips. Besides, we want the memory controller to be on-die. While Apple's FCP affords real time effects which are dandy for editing, you still have to render and for that, you want all the power you can muster, mister.
So, maybe 6 months hence or so, IBM will be able to deliver on the 970MP promise. Sure would be nice because lots of power hungry pros are drooling already at the prospect.
While we're on the subject of advanced technology that people don't really need (, ), eSATA has already been obsoleted by SAS. Although I don't see Apple ever including either one in the Power Mac; you'll have to get it through a PCI card.
Of course. Apple will likely continue to flog FW as a drive connectivity standard whilst the market rapidly moves over to SATA/SAS.
XRAID is going to have to support SAS. Or I'll be hurt. I'm sensitive like that.
Hell they could surprise me though. I think they really have to nail the PCI-Express implementation also. If we're to get Dual-Core lets make a statement.
. . . 3D artists made the switch to PCs years ago, so they're already long since over workstation prices, and accustomed to PC prices. This market will be a hard sell for Apple: Even if they came out with a dual-3GHz machine tomorrow, they'd still lack pro GPUs, a number of software titles, and top-flight OpenGL performance. Time will tell, but I don't see how that situation will change any time soon.
I confess that I don't know the workstation market first hand, but just what I read on these discussions, which likely means I'm in deep trouble. It's almost certain that Apple will have PCI Express in the next, major Power Mac revision, but I'm less sure of other features after your comments. You paint a little different picture. Maybe there is not much demand for pro GPUs, more expansion slots, more drive bays and a second optical drive. Possibly it's just a few, very vocal individuals,
On the other hand, it really looks like the dual core Power Macs will truly live up to their name, with quad cores. IBM and Apple may be slow in coming to market with the 970MP, but I have a feeling that this chip may beat the Intel and AMD chips in both cost and power dissipation. That would make the new Macs very competitive. Yet that is just a gut feeling. It could turn out that the x86 platform has even better performing quads at a reasonable price.
I'll stop thinking about this topic and just see where the discussion goes.
I confess that I don't know the workstation market first hand, but just what I read on these discussions, which likely means I'm in deep trouble. It's almost certain that Apple will have PCI Express in the next, major Power Mac revision, but I'm less sure of other features after your comments. You paint a little different picture. Maybe there is not much demand for pro GPUs, more expansion slots, more drive bays and a second optical drive. Possibly it's just a few, very vocal individuals,
The pro "market" is actually a whole bunch of little markets. If you're a professional, you're making money with your hardware and software, and you need what you need, and you want your hardware and software to accommodate the way you work. It makes sense, then, that pros are buying many different kinds of machines instead of just towers. It also makes sense that they're a vocal group, by and large.
The problem that the PowerMac has to deal with is that there is no such thing as a list of specs that a pro machine requires. Pro machines are used to accomplish specific tasks. The specs they require are whatever each task requires. There are a lot of tasks in a lot of fields, and the PowerMac has to balance all of their needs.
Quote:
On the other hand, it really looks like the dual core Power Macs will truly live up to their name, with quad cores. IBM and Apple may be slow in coming to market with the 970MP, but I have a feeling that this chip may beat the Intel and AMD chips in both cost and power dissipation. That would make the new Macs very competitive. Yet that is just a gut feeling. It could turn out that the x86 platform has even better performing quads at a reasonable price.
The next couple of years will certainly be interesting. Don't forget software! Mac software tends to be multiprocessor and thread savvy, as a result of OS X and the G4 stagnation (which, in retrospect, was actually good medicine for the platform). Apple can roll out quad cores and expect a goodly amount of software (theirs and others') to take advantage of those cores right out of the box. If Apple takes the iMac dual-core, that will be an additional incentive for more software (including games) to be threaded for multiprocessing.
Time will tell.
One other thing: The Apple machines will have to be quiet. One very vocal group of professionals work in audio, and the last time Apple released a loud PowerMac they raised hell (irony is a beautiful thing). So any firebreathing performance will have to be balanced with the need to keep the noise down.
One other thing: The Apple machines will have to be quiet. One very vocal group of professionals work in audio, and the last time Apple released a loud PowerMac they raised hell (irony is a beautiful thing). So any firebreathing performance will have to be balanced with the need to keep the noise down.
What a sound-proof room for the Power Macs themselves is out of the question/budget?
I rendered one of the example scenes that comes with Lightwave 8.0 on it. It takes about seven seconds a frame. My old 867MHz Powerbook took closer to a minute per frame... Good God that's nice.
If you compared your 1.8 with an old iBook, it'd seem even faster!
Comments
Originally posted by Gamblor
Actually I think he got your point perfectly:
Bottom line: If you absolutely MUST have a machine with 14 8x PCIe slots, SLI (with both slots having full 16x bandwidth), two dual-core procs, two internal RAIDs, etc... then the Mac really isn't for you. Apple hasn't satisfied that end of the computing spectrum probably since the IIfx, and I honestly don't see them doing it again any time soon.
On a tangential note: I picked up a dual 1.8 from the Chandler Apple store yesterday, since they went on sale. It's not even close to being the current top end machine, and it's ridiculously fast... And that's before I sink another gig of ram & a 9800 pro into it. I rendered one of the example scenes that comes with Lightwave 8.0 on it. It takes about seven seconds a frame. My old 867MHz Powerbook took closer to a minute per frame... Good God that's nice. I'm not going to load any more software on it until I get my grubby little mits on a copy of Tigger. Can't wait to see how Photoshop does (even though I've only got 7.0...)
Well the machine you refer to is quite extreme, and I doubt it exists on any platform. But that still is no excuse for letting a professional lineup fall behind in the times constantly.
Originally posted by onlooker
I know so many people that used to use a PowerMac that don't use Mac's at all any more. I also know a lot of people that were planning a return to the Mac after SJ, and IBM proclaimed 3GHz in a years time that were upset, and went back to higher powered PC's. I know PC users that wanted to switch to the PowerMac because they thought IBM was capable of helping Apples pro lineup look like better qualified workstations.
All these mediocre updates, set backs, and the length of time it takes to update the PowerMac was keeping them at arms length, and essentially has shoved them far enough away to keep them away until Apple can redeem itself over time, and a few updates. (wounds heal)
Most all of the things I come in here and complain/explain about are not spawned originally from my own thoughts, but from discussions about the possibility of Apple computer making an entrance into the pro workstation market between others, and myself. The general consensus is Apple just doesn't "stay" on the cutting edge of hardware technology as they once did, and just about all other computer manufacturers seem to do just that.
The thing that seems to keep Apple alive in the end is their great software, and a fanatical user base, but they too are always let down by hardware offerings, and wait for the "next great hardware update" that never comes.
That last sentence in a way sums up everything I said previously from the views of many onlookers.
Agreed. But, aren't the current G5's super fast anyway? Ignoring extras like pci-e and pro gpu's- are we just being a bit anxious over whats coming up next (mp's, gx's), when in reality the current speed of the Powermacs rival that of any PC equivalant, even at similar prices?
seems alot of folk are complaining about the speed of the Powermacs, when really that isn't the problem, but the fact that we haven't seen any major progress/updates for 2 years and are lacking those 'extras' that are becoming standard.
correct me if i'm wrong here.
The pro workstation market is relatively small (look at the sales of pro workstations—Suns, HPs, IBMs, SGIs—even in their heyday), and so the shrinkage of PowerMac sales could in fact be an indication that they're settling in to that market and ceding most of Apple's traditional pro markets to the iMac and the Powerbook and the mini. Even the Xserve, which allows less powerful and more portable clients to offload their heavy lifting, has probably had a negative impact on PowerMac sales. That leaves the workstation market, which to my knowledge has never come close to affording any single vendor anything close to 140k machines per quarter, let alone 200k. As of Tiger, the iMac will probably cannibalize some of those sales, now that it's a moderately powerful machine with a 64-bit-capable UNIX and an attractive price tag (and desktop footprint). If the mini spawns some upscale variants, the PowerMac will most likely cede the sub-$2k market entirely. Remember, to someone used to UNIX workstation prices, the top of the line PowerMac looks like a steal.
onlooker's is a special case, because the last time Macs were heavily used in 3D, the SGI Onyx was the ultimate render box. (That was some time ago.) 3D artists made the switch to PCs years ago, so they're already long since over workstation prices, and accustomed to PC prices. This market will be a hard sell for Apple: Even if they came out with a dual-3GHz machine tomorrow, they'd still lack pro GPUs, a number of software titles, and top-flight OpenGL performance. Time will tell, but I don't see how that situation will change any time soon.
It'd be nice if Apple could make use of all the latest mobo tech but it can't without more advanced chips. Besides, we want the memory controller to be on-die. While Apple's FCP affords real time effects which are dandy for editing, you still have to render and for that, you want all the power you can muster, mister.
So, maybe 6 months hence or so, IBM will be able to deliver on the 970MP promise. Sure would be nice because lots of power hungry pros are drooling already at the prospect.
More power to the people! 8)
Originally posted by wmf
While we're on the subject of advanced technology that people don't really need (,
Of course. Apple will likely continue to flog FW as a drive connectivity standard whilst the market rapidly moves over to SATA/SAS.
XRAID is going to have to support SAS. Or I'll be hurt. I'm sensitive like that.
Hell they could surprise me though. I think they really have to nail the PCI-Express implementation also. If we're to get Dual-Core lets make a statement.
Originally posted by Amorph
. . . 3D artists made the switch to PCs years ago, so they're already long since over workstation prices, and accustomed to PC prices. This market will be a hard sell for Apple: Even if they came out with a dual-3GHz machine tomorrow, they'd still lack pro GPUs, a number of software titles, and top-flight OpenGL performance. Time will tell, but I don't see how that situation will change any time soon.
I confess that I don't know the workstation market first hand, but just what I read on these discussions, which likely means I'm in deep trouble.
On the other hand, it really looks like the dual core Power Macs will truly live up to their name, with quad cores. IBM and Apple may be slow in coming to market with the 970MP, but I have a feeling that this chip may beat the Intel and AMD chips in both cost and power dissipation. That would make the new Macs very competitive. Yet that is just a gut feeling. It could turn out that the x86 platform has even better performing quads at a reasonable price.
I'll stop thinking about this topic and just see where the discussion goes.
Originally posted by snoopy
I confess that I don't know the workstation market first hand, but just what I read on these discussions, which likely means I'm in deep trouble.
The pro "market" is actually a whole bunch of little markets. If you're a professional, you're making money with your hardware and software, and you need what you need, and you want your hardware and software to accommodate the way you work. It makes sense, then, that pros are buying many different kinds of machines instead of just towers. It also makes sense that they're a vocal group, by and large.
The problem that the PowerMac has to deal with is that there is no such thing as a list of specs that a pro machine requires. Pro machines are used to accomplish specific tasks. The specs they require are whatever each task requires. There are a lot of tasks in a lot of fields, and the PowerMac has to balance all of their needs.
On the other hand, it really looks like the dual core Power Macs will truly live up to their name, with quad cores. IBM and Apple may be slow in coming to market with the 970MP, but I have a feeling that this chip may beat the Intel and AMD chips in both cost and power dissipation. That would make the new Macs very competitive. Yet that is just a gut feeling. It could turn out that the x86 platform has even better performing quads at a reasonable price.
The next couple of years will certainly be interesting. Don't forget software! Mac software tends to be multiprocessor and thread savvy, as a result of OS X and the G4 stagnation (which, in retrospect, was actually good medicine for the platform). Apple can roll out quad cores and expect a goodly amount of software (theirs and others') to take advantage of those cores right out of the box. If Apple takes the iMac dual-core, that will be an additional incentive for more software (including games) to be threaded for multiprocessing.
Time will tell.
One other thing: The Apple machines will have to be quiet. One very vocal group of professionals work in audio, and the last time Apple released a loud PowerMac they raised hell (irony is a beautiful thing). So any firebreathing performance will have to be balanced with the need to keep the noise down.
Originally posted by Amorph
One other thing: The Apple machines will have to be quiet. One very vocal group of professionals work in audio, and the last time Apple released a loud PowerMac they raised hell (irony is a beautiful thing). So any firebreathing performance will have to be balanced with the need to keep the noise down.
What a sound-proof room for the Power Macs themselves is out of the question/budget?
Originally posted by Gamblor
I rendered one of the example scenes that comes with Lightwave 8.0 on it. It takes about seven seconds a frame. My old 867MHz Powerbook took closer to a minute per frame... Good God that's nice.
If you compared your 1.8 with an old iBook, it'd seem even faster!