Topic awaiting preservation: "The world's fastest personal computer" (Page 1 of 1)

the NEW POWER MAC G5
does anyone plan to buy it?

i want one

edit: wrong image

elysiumart

I'm not very confident with this benchmark... But anyway, my advise is to wait for the 64 bits AMD processors.

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

did you also have a look at the video?

actually, I heard the 'rigid' the benchmark a bit more than usual...

(spec benchmarks are usually compiled speficially for the cpu and operating system.
I believe rumors had it, that apple also exchanged a couple of os libraries for faster versions. (Was it a different malloc() handling that wouldn't work with any other software? I don't quite remember.)

edit: source (german language)

[This message has been edited by Tyberius Prime (edited 06-29-2003).]

At any rate, all personal computers these days are so fast that pure speed isn't a good reason to buy anything. The decision to purchase a Mac vs. a Windows PC vs. a Linux PC is best made on OS features, OS ease of use, software library, hardware compatibility, quality of peripherals, and price. These concerns seem far more important than speed (assuming at least P4/G4/Athlon power), and thus I'm always confused when speed is presented as the major issue in a new computer.

Cell 1250 :: alanmacdougall.com :: Illustrator tips

If you walk without rhythm, you won't attract the worm.

edit: comic 2

-


[This message has been edited by mahjqa (edited 06-29-2003).]

I think PT is right. In fact, I can't remember the last time the processor was a bottleneck for me. Even editing video. If I ever have to wait for anything, it's the hard drive.

But I guess it's all about "bigger, faster, stronger."

Besides, it's a pissing contest. The Mac Nazis have to constantly prove to themselves that their machines are better than PCs. (I'm not saying everyone who uses a Mac is a Mac Nazi. I'm talking about the ones who act obnoxiously superior because of their choice of OS.)

Like a guy I work with said in response to a G5 commercial, "I believe Macs will always outdo PCs." I love how the Mac Nazis group all PCs into a single category, as if they're all manufactured and configured the same way.

"I think PT is right. In fact, I can't remember the last time the processor was a bottleneck for me. Even editing video. If I ever have to wait for anything, it's the hard drive."

While I somewhat agree, I will admit that I find myself waiting while editing video.. with *both* platforms. (Particularly because I do a lot of render work.)

(Even though this is with my 1-2 year old G4, and the brand new computers that the school bought.)

However, it's all marketing. The bigger the numbers, the more people say "ooo!". No matter what, it's a subconscious thing. There are certain aspects of advertising that just pop out at us, and big numbers are one of those things.

For example, Back in the day, everyone always thought Macs were slower because they had a lower Mhz count than just about any PC. While true, I'm sure most of here now know that it doesn't make a difference, because the Mac fits more calculations in a single clock cycle. (generally speaking, which makes all of the processors about equal imho, up until the G5)

"The decision to purchase a Mac vs. a Windows PC vs. a Linux PC is best made on OS features, OS ease of use, software library, hardware compatibility, quality of peripherals, and price."

Once again, I mostly agree, but I find that most people judge far too soon. People spend a day or a week with a computer platform that is not their own and are quick to dismiss it, because obviously it does things differently than their own personal computer. What you really need is a year or more to hang around a computer, get used to it's little quirks, shortcuts, ins and outs, strengths and weaknesses, and THEN say what computer you prefer. I know not all of us have the time to do that, but spending a lot of time with both types of computers, and an analysis of my personal needs has led to my choice of the Mac. Not saying everyone else should, but I do say that most people think they like a certain OS better, but probably haven't even tried many other OS's for a reasonable period of time. (Which is why, imho, Mac people bash PC people, and PC people bash Mac people.)

So, I'll agree with whoever said "I believe Macs will always outdo PC's", as far as *my* personal needs go. To everyone else, I say; Give the other guys a try for awhile. =D

(I have yet to try Linux, though I'd really like to!)

-Xel

P.S. School computer don't count in most cases, unless your school is very rich. Comparing computers from 2-3+ years ago is not a good way to judge. I hate my schools Macs (and PC's) too ;D [edit: Plus schools suck at taking care of their computers, or at least mine does.]



[This message has been edited by Xel (edited 06-29-2003).]

How much you wanna bet when Photoshop 8 comes out (which should be fairly soon I think) it'll be 64 bit ready? I will be buying a G5 eventually, even though my G3 and G4 are still doing quite well. It's always a real treat stepping up to the next chip and seeing how mich slicker everything works.

Coming from a print and prepress background. I don't see any real advantage to moving Photoshop to 64bit. Other then perhaps access to true 16bit image suport, but then most output devices don't support 16bit color anyway. So any advantage is lost on output anyway.

Productivity studies and tooling summarys I've done, find processer speed offers little advantage in a the typical production workflow. Theres a cases to be made when working with 500mg+ images but those are atypical uses and additonal memory, faster networks, drives, and simply working smarter out way any advantage real advantage from the processer.

The only real noticeable improvement in Photoshop would be filter functions such as Gaussian Blur, USM etc... In the average workflow filter operations are used maybe once or twice per image and play a minor role overall. Fuction sush as cloning, masking, clip path generation, color correction all take far move time and realy wouldn't seem much benifit from 64bit processing. I found a skilled operator's average time performing tasks remains the same regardless or the processer speed.

Even in workflows where filters are use more often, is there realy a big impact of having it done now or 5 secs from now, unless you are processing 1000's of image the time is minor, besides you have to take a sip of coffee, chat, or visit the rest room sometime.

I did find investing in network enhancements such as 1ghz networks, bus speed, and faster harddrives improved productivity far greater then processer speed does.

There would be an advantage with math intensive application such as 3D or Video, but the G5 specs seem to be minor improvements or typical system for that use. One would be better served invensting in Pro-level OpenGL cards, to improve redraw or dedicated video processors like a video toaster or avid's.

J. Stuart J.

I don't get it.. if a 2ghzx2 with 8 gig of ram is considered a personal computer, then so is a dual Xeon sytem with processors at 3ghz with 8 gig of ram. Which is cheaper, and much much faster mhz to mhz.
http://www.apple.com/powermac/graphics.html

I don't understand how apple does those benchmarks, but on my computer, which is slower than a 3ghz pentium 4C, I get 350fps easily in Q3A at 1024x768x32 with most of the graphic settings turned up, and with anisotropic filtering and antialiasing turned up on my video card. Meaning Apple seriously handicapped that pentium, likely turnning hyperthreading off, and seriously underclocking it, or maybe even limiting the fps to 275 with the /com_maxFPS command. A decent computer built with a pentium@3.0ghz and with an ATI Radeon 9800 pro should be able to do well over 400 FPS in that test. Meaning clearly that "Personal Computer" isn't even up to par with todays AMD and Intel technology, which are way under its price range, and it likely wont even compete with the hammer series of athlon64's coming out, as well as a new pentium line of 64 bit processors schedualed shortly after.

Finally, the price! For a Dual 2ghz G5 with 2gb Ram (I wont even scare you with how much extra it is for 8GB - but its 4 digits), ATI Radeon 9800 PRO 17" monitors, and cards to make all those cool features on the front of the chasis work:
$4,568.00 USD

hmmm

Then, for a faster Intel Xeon computer, with 2 3.06GHz processors, 2GB ram, 17" monitor ATI Radeon 9800 PRO, 5.1 Sound, lan adapter, USB 2.0 and a nice lightweight aluminum case:
$2,744.00 USD (after a quick search through http://www.pricewatch.com/)

A few points, Dan. (After browsing a few search engines with the keywords "Computer Benchmarks Xeon vs G5" among other things)

Apparently, Apple leveled the playing field fairly well in it's tests. I read from a few sources that in the dual-3ghz Xeon series, hyperthreading was shown to be a *disadvantage*. I don't remember the source anymore, but I'll try and find it again.

[edit: Found it.. http://page2.macrumors.com/ .. Make sure you read the "comments" on the articles too, a lot of it is enlightening. Yes, I will concede it could be biased, in that it is indeed a Mac site. Bite me.]

Additionally, Apple was using code that was not optimized for 64-bit technology, although I did see some people complaining that apple did some "tweaking", to make up for it a little.

By the way.. I think the way the Xeons architecture is structured, it can't even handle up to 89 GB of RAM, I was led to believe that 4 GB was the max. Someone correct me if I'm wrong please?

Additionally, a lot of computers lately have been held up in their speed output by the bandwidth between the internal parts of the machine. (bus speed, etc) One of the G5's strong points is, it's no longer held up by this speed bottleneck.

And I think you ignored by bit about the "megahertz myth" I briefly described in my other post.

As for the price, you can always buy as much RAM as you want, from just about any other place, for cheaper, probably. Not a huge deal there. The benchmark tests say it was run with 128 MB of RAM. Heh. You also didn't mention the hard drives, OS, and anything about a CD-ROM drive. a 160 GB HD, Jaguar, and a DVD/CD burner/reader all come standard-- that means inclusive-- with the dual 2ghz model. You don't even have to go for the dual 2 ghz model, there's always the 1.6/1.8, heh. Some of us already have a usable display from purchasing a G3/G4 from earlier, which would chop a lot of the price off as well.

And, while it may still be more expensive than the Xeon, there are several other advantages to Macs that aren't listed in with everything else, just as the PC platform has its advantages.

I guess I'm done ranting, now. /action steps off the soap box.

-Xel



[This message has been edited by Xel (edited 06-30-2003).]

Looks like Adobe isn't even gonna wait for version 8 to take advantage of the new chip.
http://www.creativepro.com/story/news/19731.html

I wouldn't mind picking one up, but one article suggests Apple might be lying:
http://www.haxial.com/spls-soapbox/apple-powermac-G5

It's worth a read.

Jestah

[This message has been edited by Jestah (edited 06-30-2003).]

Considering that the benchmark wasn't optimized for 64 bit processing, I would warrant apples doing whatever they did to the "malloc" library.

I would quibble more, but.. eyes getting tired.. need sleep.. zz..

Heh, actually, I have to note.. there's a lot of back-and-forth "Apple lied!" -- "No they didn't, you just can't us for being better!" --etc chat going on between PC peeps and Mac freaks. Kinda entertaining, and it's just giving Apple more publicity. But I guess we won't know who's right on the whole benchmark thing until the machines are shipped!

I'll keep my eyes open..zzz...

-Xel