Also, the PC consumer world welcomes this news not because they NEED a 3 ghz CPU with hyperthread but this will put price pressure on the 2.x ghz chips and AMDs! Also, the new Celeron 2 ghz chips based on the new core, overclocks to 2.6-3 easy!
Before I started using a Mac which is a mere four months ago, I did not pay that much attention to hardware advancement news becase as a PC user, I am used to new technology cominging every single month or so. However, since I started using a Mac, these news no longer sit well with me. Case in point, I like the iBook so much that I want to get a PowerMac for my next PC. But, how can I justify it when I can have a more powerful machine for 1/2 the cost?
Yes, yes, the OS is superior and elegant etc. but that can't justify my having TWO pieces of overpriced hardware vs one overpriced Apple machine (which I enjoy very much) and one fast MS machine for MP3, DivX encoding, game, etc.
I have not known anyone who buys a top of the line system and not max out on things like RAM because the RAM can drop in price. </strong><hr></blockquote>
But you're not maxing out the RAM on the DELL with 4 RIMMs - you're only maxing out the slots.
hey in regards to some of these people aelier posts about ae not runn at 100% or 50 or whatever the hell you want to say. i have a dual 867 and when i did my smoke render, my compuetr pretyy much shut down. opening a folder in the finder took about 10 sec. and trying to launch terminal so i could use top took forever too. whe i did get top running as well as the cpu monitor it was maxed out pretty well. and then that little number next to the cpu usage percentage was a wonderful 105% yep over 100% whille top was using 10 and other proceesses. i know that top must be wrong but if im getting around 100% or morre everytime i render doesnt that mean its trying to use the processors as much as possible
In the article they actually mention that the Mac is about 600 more (which is what you end up with if you bump the RAM to 1GB and add 3 year Applecare to bring it up to par with the Dell) then on the last page they get into 1000 dollar hyperbole which is not quite right but will be pretty close to the truth when Apple ends their RAM promotion (about $850 more expensive then).
However, the DP1.25 gets spanked by even a 2.53GHz P4. While the performance difference between a 2.53 and the DP1.25 isn't as wide, the price difference is even wider, with more thana few 2.53Ghz well over a 1000 dollars cheaper than the DP1Ghz.
Apple needs to do something about this soon, Megahurts myth or not the price-performance advantage of Intel based systems is real and dramatic.
I like the Mac so much, I bought (shares of) Apple.
I like it so much that I paid $$$ to become an Apple Consultant.
I like the Mac so much that I actually pay for my software (duh).
But, I wish Apple would take some action regarding the motherboard and RAM Speeds (Don't go pointing to Motorola, Apple was stupid/smart enough to contract with them and IBM for the PPC so it's still Apple's fault for making what has turned out to be a bad decision for the last 2 years).
The truth is that the price that Apple gets to charge for it's product has NOTHING to do with it's cost of manufacture. The market determines the price. The market doesn't care what it costs to make it. If it costs more than the market is willing to pay, you get a PowerMac Cube. If the market likes the price, you get the original iMac.
Apple is very close to pricing every desktop product it makes out of the market's acceptable range. (And yes, I bought a dual 867 a few weeks ago, so I can judge the new machines).
The Dual 867 is some faster than the dual 450 it replaced, but not twice as fast....
The price should have been $1,299 for the dual 867 - because of the slow mobo bus. Yes, the software is great, yes the the processor is good, but a Porsche with a Kia engine is still a mediocre car.
<strong>In the article they actually mention that the Mac is about 600 more (which is what you end up with if you bump the RAM to 1GB and add 3 year Applecare to bring it up to par with the Dell) then on the last page they get into 1000 dollar hyperbole which is not quite right but will be pretty close to the truth when Apple ends their RAM promotion (about $850 more expensive then).
However, the DP1.25 gets spanked by even a 2.53GHz P4. While the performance difference between a 2.53 and the DP1.25 isn't as wide, the price difference is even wider, with more thana few 2.53Ghz well over a 1000 dollars cheaper than the DP1Ghz.
Apple needs to do something about this soon, Megahurts myth or not the price-performance advantage of Intel based systems is real and dramatic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, with my As Equal As It Gets? comparison ($249 AppleCare tacked on, rebates taken into account on both sides of the fence) the PowerMac is 95 bucks more than the Precision 350.
Don't use whatever prices digitalvideoediting.com posted, in order to get that much of a difference, the Mac had to come with more (I.E, modem, etc.)
I'd like to point out that $95 is small change when you are buying a system, sans monitor(s), that costs in excess of $3,000. Mac OS X is worth the extra 95 bucks.
<strong>hey in regards to some of these people aelier posts about ae not runn at 100% or 50 or whatever the hell you want to say. i have a dual 867 and when i did my smoke render, my compuetr pretyy much shut down. opening a folder in the finder took about 10 sec. and trying to launch terminal so i could use top took forever too. whe i did get top running as well as the cpu monitor it was maxed out pretty well. and then that little number next to the cpu usage percentage was a wonderful 105% yep over 100% whille top was using 10 and other proceesses. i know that top must be wrong but if im getting around 100% or morre everytime i render doesnt that mean its trying to use the processors as much as possible</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is it normal to get 200% with dual setups? So in effect, it was using 52.5% of what is available?
Someone (who knows, don't talk out of your a**) want to confirm this?
55% CPU untalization, come on. The PowerMac Still has two CPUs against one Pentium. The P4 architechure sucks big time, but its fabed in a high tech facility and is designed to scalle. While the G4 is made next to flash memory.
<strong>55% CPU untalization, come on. The PowerMac Still has two CPUs against one Pentium. The P4 architechure sucks big time, but its fabed in a high tech facility and is designed to scalle. While the G4 is made next to flash memory.
Even so, the fact that a single (I say single bceause with AE, it might as well be) 1.25GHz G4 can run with a 2.53GHz P4 says something.
It's not the PowerMac's fault that AE wont use its dual brains to their full potential.
Regardless of how many processors the PowerMac has, since everyone is so price-centric these days, and they come in at around the same price, it doesn't really matter.
[EDIT: Damn...UBB is wigging out and deleting stuff.]
Actually, with my As Equal As It Gets? comparison ($249 AppleCare tacked on, rebates taken into account on both sides of the fence) the PowerMac is 95 bucks more than the Precision 350.
Don't use whatever prices digitalvideoediting.com posted, in order to get that much of a difference, the Mac had to come with more (I.E, modem, etc.)
I'd like to point out that $95 is small change when you are buying a system, sans monitor(s), that costs in excess of $3,000. Mac OS X is worth the extra 95 bucks. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I would dispute that, but even if that were true the Pentium 4 absolutly trashes the $3000 a mac
A Mac with 1 hand tied behind its back, that is. ...but that isn't using it to the fullest extent it can provide, is it now? Are you interested in doing bake-offs all day at work, or are you going to do whatever you must to get the most out of your machine, no matter what it is?
I would dispute that, but even if that were true the Pentium 4 absolutly trashes the $3000 a mac</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dispute it all you want. I don't think Dell's website is lying to me about the price, but you never know.
The P4 trashes the G4, sure, when you use software that wont make use of the G4.
Just keep this in mind, the most the Mac was behind was two times the time of the P4, were AE to take 100% instead of 55%, the numbers would be very close and the G4 would come out on top on a lot of those tests.
BTW, nice spelling/odd insertion of an 'a' before the uncapitalized mac...
Come on, this isn't real-time chat, you have time to think this stuff out and OmniWeb uses Mac OS X's spell checker.
This mac with "the hand tied behind its back" argument makes no sense. It either works or it doesn't, no matter whose fault it may be. If After Effects isn't great on MP systems, well, the PC still has the same constraints. An SP or an MP PC will still be ahead. It's NOT something that hampers the mac more, or unfairly. Macs are supposed to have that great integration, that symbiosis between hardware and software, on their side, but it appears the nod must go to the PC in this case. Better Sp performance for the PC, can only mean even better DP performance.
Though I suppose you can give OSX a bit of a nod under DP configs, if you want to run something intensive in the background while working on something else.
the iBook, since its like 1/3 the speed of the lowly dualies, must be absolutely worthless then, huh?
and yet im going to get one soon-this doesnt seem to make sense, because i thought it wouldnt be fast enough to use.
something wrong with this picture?
people care a little too much about speed.
if your job depends on rendering, then buy a super high speed PC to do that, and while it is chugging on the render or whatever, watch a dvd/check email/surf web/listen to music/do just about anything on your iBook in your lap.
Why are some of you who are complaining about AE not being optimized for the Mac, completely ignoring the fact that the test was also done with Photoshop? There is no program more optimized than PS. Yet, the Mac is still beaten, badly. This is not a test method problem, an AE problem, or even a price difference problem. No matter how hard some of you ignore the problem or deflect the issue, this is a Mac problem, pure and simple.
<strong>This mac with "the hand tied behind its back" argument makes no sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It makes a lot of sense once you are dealing with multiple sessions of work running simultaneously (unless you are dealing with notorously badly written software or cockblocked by bad hardware/software license implementations). If the perception of performance simply came down to how well a processor ran one single program at a time, we wouldn't need multitasking OS's and software would be hardwired logic on a chip, wouldn't they now? No matter what you (not you literally, you in general) care to dismiss or what you deem "fairplay", if the system is showing 50% utilization, you have resources not being utilized. It is as simple as that. Is it really worthwhile to crucify the hardware because of a shortcoming in the software or the inability of the user to make full use of the hardware?
Comments
Before I started using a Mac which is a mere four months ago, I did not pay that much attention to hardware advancement news becase as a PC user, I am used to new technology cominging every single month or so. However, since I started using a Mac, these news no longer sit well with me. Case in point, I like the iBook so much that I want to get a PowerMac for my next PC. But, how can I justify it when I can have a more powerful machine for 1/2 the cost?
Yes, yes, the OS is superior and elegant etc. but that can't justify my having TWO pieces of overpriced hardware vs one overpriced Apple machine (which I enjoy very much) and one fast MS machine for MP3, DivX encoding, game, etc.
<a href="http://www.thinksecret.com/news/aftereffects6.html"; target="_blank">http://www.thinksecret.com/news/aftereffects6.html</a>;
Ah f*ck, they just had to remove the article
<strong>
I have not known anyone who buys a top of the line system and not max out on things like RAM because the RAM can drop in price.
But you're not maxing out the RAM on the DELL with 4 RIMMs - you're only maxing out the slots.
However, the DP1.25 gets spanked by even a 2.53GHz P4. While the performance difference between a 2.53 and the DP1.25 isn't as wide, the price difference is even wider, with more thana few 2.53Ghz well over a 1000 dollars cheaper than the DP1Ghz.
Apple needs to do something about this soon, Megahurts myth or not the price-performance advantage of Intel based systems is real and dramatic.
I like it so much that I paid $$$ to become an Apple Consultant.
I like the Mac so much that I actually pay for my software (duh).
But, I wish Apple would take some action regarding the motherboard and RAM Speeds (Don't go pointing to Motorola, Apple was stupid/smart enough to contract with them and IBM for the PPC so it's still Apple's fault for making what has turned out to be a bad decision for the last 2 years).
The truth is that the price that Apple gets to charge for it's product has NOTHING to do with it's cost of manufacture. The market determines the price. The market doesn't care what it costs to make it. If it costs more than the market is willing to pay, you get a PowerMac Cube. If the market likes the price, you get the original iMac.
Apple is very close to pricing every desktop product it makes out of the market's acceptable range. (And yes, I bought a dual 867 a few weeks ago, so I can judge the new machines).
The Dual 867 is some faster than the dual 450 it replaced, but not twice as fast....
The price should have been $1,299 for the dual 867 - because of the slow mobo bus. Yes, the software is great, yes the the processor is good, but a Porsche with a Kia engine is still a mediocre car.
Jobs has never learned that PRICE DOES MATTER.
<strong>
Jobs has never learned that PRICE DOES MATTER.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And he never will learn it.
<strong>In the article they actually mention that the Mac is about 600 more (which is what you end up with if you bump the RAM to 1GB and add 3 year Applecare to bring it up to par with the Dell) then on the last page they get into 1000 dollar hyperbole which is not quite right but will be pretty close to the truth when Apple ends their RAM promotion (about $850 more expensive then).
However, the DP1.25 gets spanked by even a 2.53GHz P4. While the performance difference between a 2.53 and the DP1.25 isn't as wide, the price difference is even wider, with more thana few 2.53Ghz well over a 1000 dollars cheaper than the DP1Ghz.
Apple needs to do something about this soon, Megahurts myth or not the price-performance advantage of Intel based systems is real and dramatic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, with my As Equal As It Gets? comparison ($249 AppleCare tacked on, rebates taken into account on both sides of the fence) the PowerMac is 95 bucks more than the Precision 350.
Don't use whatever prices digitalvideoediting.com posted, in order to get that much of a difference, the Mac had to come with more (I.E, modem, etc.)
I'd like to point out that $95 is small change when you are buying a system, sans monitor(s), that costs in excess of $3,000. Mac OS X is worth the extra 95 bucks.
<strong>hey in regards to some of these people aelier posts about ae not runn at 100% or 50 or whatever the hell you want to say. i have a dual 867 and when i did my smoke render, my compuetr pretyy much shut down. opening a folder in the finder took about 10 sec. and trying to launch terminal so i could use top took forever too. whe i did get top running as well as the cpu monitor it was maxed out pretty well. and then that little number next to the cpu usage percentage was a wonderful 105% yep over 100% whille top was using 10 and other proceesses. i know that top must be wrong but if im getting around 100% or morre everytime i render doesnt that mean its trying to use the processors as much as possible</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is it normal to get 200% with dual setups? So in effect, it was using 52.5% of what is available?
Someone (who knows, don't talk out of your a**) want to confirm this?
[code] if(CPU == slow) time_for_change=now; </pre><hr></blockquote>
<strong>55% CPU untalization, come on. The PowerMac Still has two CPUs against one Pentium. The P4 architechure sucks big time, but its fabed in a high tech facility and is designed to scalle. While the G4 is made next to flash memory.
[code] if(CPU == slow) time_for_change=now; </pre><hr></blockquote></strong><hr></blockquote>
Even so, the fact that a single (I say single bceause with AE, it might as well be) 1.25GHz G4 can run with a 2.53GHz P4 says something.
It's not the PowerMac's fault that AE wont use its dual brains to their full potential.
Regardless of how many processors the PowerMac has, since everyone is so price-centric these days, and they come in at around the same price, it doesn't really matter.
[EDIT: Damn...UBB is wigging out and deleting stuff.]
[ 11-15-2002: Message edited by: Spart ]</p>
<strong>
Actually, with my As Equal As It Gets? comparison ($249 AppleCare tacked on, rebates taken into account on both sides of the fence) the PowerMac is 95 bucks more than the Precision 350.
Don't use whatever prices digitalvideoediting.com posted, in order to get that much of a difference, the Mac had to come with more (I.E, modem, etc.)
I'd like to point out that $95 is small change when you are buying a system, sans monitor(s), that costs in excess of $3,000. Mac OS X is worth the extra 95 bucks.
I would dispute that, but even if that were true the Pentium 4 absolutly trashes the $3000 a mac
<strong>
I would dispute that, but even if that were true the Pentium 4 absolutly trashes the $3000 a mac</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dispute it all you want. I don't think Dell's website is lying to me about the price, but you never know.
The P4 trashes the G4, sure, when you use software that wont make use of the G4.
Just keep this in mind, the most the Mac was behind was two times the time of the P4, were AE to take 100% instead of 55%, the numbers would be very close and the G4 would come out on top on a lot of those tests.
BTW, nice spelling/odd insertion of an 'a' before the uncapitalized mac...
Come on, this isn't real-time chat, you have time to think this stuff out and OmniWeb uses Mac OS X's spell checker.
Though I suppose you can give OSX a bit of a nod under DP configs, if you want to run something intensive in the background while working on something else.
these suuuuper dells are so fast and fancy.
the iBook, since its like 1/3 the speed of the lowly dualies, must be absolutely worthless then, huh?
and yet im going to get one soon-this doesnt seem to make sense, because i thought it wouldnt be fast enough to use.
something wrong with this picture?
people care a little too much about speed.
if your job depends on rendering, then buy a super high speed PC to do that, and while it is chugging on the render or whatever, watch a dvd/check email/surf web/listen to music/do just about anything on your iBook in your lap.
<strong>This mac with "the hand tied behind its back" argument makes no sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It makes a lot of sense once you are dealing with multiple sessions of work running simultaneously (unless you are dealing with notorously badly written software or cockblocked by bad hardware/software license implementations). If the perception of performance simply came down to how well a processor ran one single program at a time, we wouldn't need multitasking OS's and software would be hardwired logic on a chip, wouldn't they now? No matter what you (not you literally, you in general) care to dismiss or what you deem "fairplay", if the system is showing 50% utilization, you have resources not being utilized. It is as simple as that. Is it really worthwhile to crucify the hardware because of a shortcoming in the software or the inability of the user to make full use of the hardware?
[ 11-16-2002: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>