Ace's Hardware on Apple Dual 1.25Ghz

[Darien]

Link to Article



Wow, those benchmarks should make any Dual 1.25GHz Mac owner cry when thinking about performance vs cost.

Of course, they'll bring in things like "but it's the software, idiot!" And again, they'll miss the point about price and performance.

Funny how mac users were quick to quip the superiority of their hardware versus "peecee" stuff a few years ago.

I just wish Ace's could do some more benchmarking...

Don't get me wrong -- I like Macs. IMO, OSX.2 > WinXP w/ sp1. But you have to ask if spending an additional <insert ridiculous amount here> is worth it if you're primarily concerned about performance.

Usability is not a big issue anymore -- not very hard to operate any of the machines, and if you're going to buy things like this, you probably already know how to use the OS.



Err, better stop before this gets into a long mac vs pc, pros and cons post.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Darien
Link to Article

Funny how mac users were quick to quip the superiority of their hardware versus "peecee" stuff a few years ago.

This really suprised me, but I did some searching a couple weeks ago, and Apple really did have the fastest hardware for the time(in terms of mhz no less). The 300mhz G3 CPU made it out before the 300mhz P2 did, and the G3 had a higher average IPC rate anyhow.:Q Macs really were the fastest for a time.

 

[Darien]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Darien
Link to Article

Funny how mac users were quick to quip the superiority of their hardware versus "peecee" stuff a few years ago.

This really suprised me, but I did some searching a couple weeks ago, and Apple really did have the fastest hardware for the time(in terms of mhz no less). The 300mhz G3 CPU made it out before the 300mhz P2 did, and the G3 had a higher average IPC rate anyhow.:Q Macs really were the fastest for a time.

Yeah, amazing isn't it? They were great back then...look where they are now :Q

 

[Duvie]

Oh and how I am so sick of the BS in those idiotic commercials...The dumb chick who saved christmas cause her father couldn't plug the dig camera in the computer and get it to work...Oh c'mon!!! Obviously they were not running winxp, and where is the f'ing driver disk that has come with every dig camera I have evr gotten....

Then there is the east indian guy...I wont even talk about him.....I love the claium pcs crash all the time and macs never do...I talk to ppl who run expensive mac workstations for multimedia and animation and they tell me of crashes frequently...they say they have started to buy dual athlon mp systems and are not looking back!!!

 

[silent tone]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Darien
Link to Article

Funny how mac users were quick to quip the superiority of their hardware versus "peecee" stuff a few years ago.

This really suprised me, but I did some searching a couple weeks ago, and Apple really did have the fastest hardware for the time(in terms of mhz no less). The 300mhz G3 CPU made it out before the 300mhz P2 did, and the G3 had a higher average IPC rate anyhow.:Q Macs really were the fastest for a time.

Yeah this was back when the 'experts' were saying x86 was dead and couldn't scale. I saw a graph predicting clockspeeds, between risc and cisc, that most resembled 2 asymptotes on different axies.

 

[Goi]

While the Mac's hardware may not be so spectacular, I've heard a lot of good things about the Mac OS X. If only there's a x86 port.

 

[ElFenix]

bah, i still want an ibook (the 12" one... sooo easy to carry)

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
bah, i still want an ibook (the 12" one... sooo easy to carry)

ditto!

people, we are talking about computers, not rocket ships. anything over (about) 500mhz is fast enough for me, i dont see why people demand 6 billahertz computers, especially when running a POS like windows.

 

[jbond04]

Because 3D animation is much more demanding than Windows.... Sometimes, speed is ALL that matters.

 

[Nailbunny]

i dont see why people demand 6 billahertz computers, especially when running a POS like windows.

As jbond04 said, try doing any 3D rendering and animation, DVD Mpeg2 encoding, video editing, or sound editing and you need all the speed and memory you can get. 500mhz just doesn't cut it....hell single processor doesn't cut it (just went dually AMD and will never go back)

A buddy just recently got a Mac (used to be a PC guy), so of course he's been trying to convince me to get one. I thought about it, then got into researching it. Waay too much $$$ with not a lot of software/hardware options for 3D and video/DVD encodeing.


I hate M$ as much as any mac person, but suprisingly Win XP has been pretty decent (M$ is starting to want to get too invasive though). Done about 72 hours of video editing/DVD encoding past couple weeks with no crashes at all.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Darien
Link to Article



Wow, those benchmarks should make any Dual 1.25GHz Mac owner cry when thinking about performance vs cost.

Of course, they'll bring in things like "but it's the software, idiot!" And again, they'll miss the point about price and performance.

Funny how mac users were quick to quip the superiority of their hardware versus "peecee" stuff a few years ago.

I just wish Ace's could do some more benchmarking...

Don't get me wrong -- I like Macs. IMO, OSX.2 > WinXP w/ sp1. But you have to ask if spending an additional <insert ridiculous amount here> is worth it if you're primarily concerned about performance.

Usability is not a big issue anymore -- not very hard to operate any of the machines, and if you're going to buy things like this, you probably already know how to use the OS.



Err, better stop before this gets into a long mac vs pc, pros and cons post.

Good lord!
Anyone have an idea how much this thing costs?

 

[dullard]

The real funny thing is that Ace didn't even come close to using the full power of Xeons in that comparison.
1) He limited it to the older hyperthreading chips (thus it was turned off),
2) he used a 400 MHz fsb (instead of the 533 MHz which has been out for weeks), and
3) he used 2.4 GHz chips instead of 2.8 GHz chips which have been out for two months (maybe more I don't quite remember the right date).

 

[Darien]

Good lord!
Anyone have an idea how much this thing costs?

http://store.apple.com/



$3,299.00
Dual 1.25GHz PowerPC G4
256K L2 cache
& 2MB L3 cache/processor
167MHz System Bus
512MB PC2700 DDR SDRAM
120GB Ultra ATA drive
SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
ATI Radeon 9000 Pro
56K internal modem



$4,599.00
Dual 1.25GHz PowerPC G4
256K L2 cache
& 2MB L3 cache/processor
167MHz System Bus
2.0GB PC2700 DDR SDRAM
120GB Ultra ATA drive
SuperDrive & Combo drive
NVIDIA GeForce4 Titanium
56K internal modem

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Darien

Good lord!
Anyone have an idea how much this thing costs?

http://store.apple.com/



$3,299.00
Dual 1.25GHz PowerPC G4
256K L2 cache
& 2MB L3 cache/processor
167MHz System Bus
512MB PC2700 DDR SDRAM
120GB Ultra ATA drive
SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
ATI Radeon 9000 Pro
56K internal modem



$4,599.00
Dual 1.25GHz PowerPC G4
256K L2 cache
& 2MB L3 cache/processor
167MHz System Bus
2.0GB PC2700 DDR SDRAM
120GB Ultra ATA drive
SuperDrive & Combo drive
NVIDIA GeForce4 Titanium
56K internal modem

I guess when you buy a Mac you are not too concerned about price vs performance.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
I guess when you buy a Mac you are not too concerned about price vs performance.

Almost right, but in reality they are not too concerned about price OR performance.

 

[vash]

Mac people buy Macs because they love their machines and are familiar with it. There is nothing wrong with Macs (by and large), but because they control both the hardware AND the software running it, they can easily inflate the pricing and justify the cost.

Now imagine IF Microsoft did the same thing: controlled both the hardware AND the OS. I would bet we'd be looking at similar pricing structure as the Macs.

On another note, Mac's DO cost more for what they do and numerous benchmarks prove this. The cost/performance factor can easily be seen in many benchmarks where a similar equipped PC can spank a G4 machine. However, there are times when the G4 can simply outrun the PC box as well, it all depends on which benchmarks you read.

This is *MY* benchmark: cost for me to own one machine to surf, read email and play the games I currently enjoy. Sure, I can own an older iMac, or I can own a really well equipped PC (still not top of the line) and play Quake3 at much higher framerate compared to that Mac.

Finally, I *will* own a Mac someday (to add to my collection of computers), much like I will own a Sun box. Mac's have a special place in me, I would really want to own one, but the cost of a "good" Mac is much more than the cost of a "good" PC. When Apple gets their head out of their a***, I will buy a machine that I can assemble and install OSX. The day Apple releases the base specs of an OSX compatible machine is the day I install OSX. Until then, its all PC for me.

vash

 

[Draco]

I dig Apple,t heir current hardware and their OS, but this is just rich

"The PowerPC G4 won renown as the first supercomputer on a chip, with a sustained performance of over one gigaflop. And it only gets better. The new Power Mac G4 desktop system with the dual 1.25GHz PowerPC G4 processor configuration hits speeds of over 18 gigaflops."

Already in 1991, Cray's high-end supercomputer C90 had a peak performance of 16 gigaflops. This supercomputer had 16 CPUs so each CPU had a peak of 1 Gigaflops. Apple's claim "The PowerPC G4 won renown as the first supercomputer on a chip, with a sustained performance of over one gigaflop," is simply wrong. Essentially Apple is boasting that their current dual CPU system is as fast now as a 12 year old supercomputer. The current 3.06 GHz Pentium 4 has a theoretical peak of 12 gigaflops (SSE) per chip.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
bah, i still want an ibook (the 12" one... sooo easy to carry)

scratch that, i want an albook

 

[wetcat007]

Macs are good for video editing, and imaging, and that's about it. They can't run most games, they dont browse the web better, they cost more, they have 1 button mice, they have annoying gay commercials, about how someone couldnt figure out to insert the drivers disk into the cd drive etc. I'd possiblyt buy a mac if they didn't cost so much simply for the advantages I would gain of having a better system for videoediting since it's hard to find real decent software for vid editing on PC.

 

[krackato]

Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, Cinema Tools, and OS X. God I hate Apple's prices, but if you're into video, their software is fantastic. I keep praying that their hardware business fails and they're forced to go x86. I'd be in heaven if that happened.

 

[Darien]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: ElFenix
bah, i still want an ibook (the 12" one... sooo easy to carry)

scratch that, i want an albook

hehehe. me too



We should call the 17" model "The Big Al Book"
the 12 should be called "mini AlPo"



"AlBook" alone just sounds...bleh...compared to "TiBook"

 

[cnhoff]

Hey ELFenix

If i remember correctly from my active TeAm days, you are pretty much into the Seti thing, aren't you?

So then, if i offered you either a dual MP2100 or a dual Mac, i think i know, what you would choose

 

[Go3iverson]

I've always been happy with my Apples. The funniest hardware quirk I've seen recently was with a Cannon scanner I bought. It said specifically that Mac OS X would run it....well, it sorta did, but not really. So, I break down and plug it into my XP Pro machine...the machine crashed HARD and wouldn't reboot right. So I take my Mac OS X Server offline, boot it down to OS 9 and the scanner works great....

Go figure!

BTW: I'm still loving my PowerBook!

 

[PCMarine]

Originally posted by: Duvie
Oh and how I am so sick of the BS in those idiotic commercials...The dumb chick who saved christmas cause her father couldn't plug the dig camera in the computer and get it to work...Oh c'mon!!! Obviously they were not running winxp, and where is the f'ing driver disk that has come with every dig camera I have evr gotten....

Then there is the east indian guy...I wont even talk about him.....I love the claium pcs crash all the time and macs never do...I talk to ppl who run expensive mac workstations for multimedia and animation and they tell me of crashes frequently...they say they have started to buy dual athlon mp systems and are not looking back!!!

Heh, and the one with stoner Ellen Heis or whatever her name is

 

[Hulk]

Originally posted by: krackato
Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, Cinema Tools, and OS X. God I hate Apple's prices, but if you're into video, their software is fantastic. I keep praying that their hardware business fails and they're forced to go x86. I'd be in heaven if that happened.

Have you done a lot of video editing with these programs? I do quite a bit of video editing and I've used FCP. It's okay but almost unusable for anyone trying to get any real work done since the Mac platform is so slow.

I'll take Vegas Video (beta 4 is very good) or MediaStudio Pro (beta 7 is amazing) any day. They are MUCH faster than FCP, offer better features by far (real time previews to tv, scrub to tv out, great built in titling, etc...) and are cheaper!

Even Premiere is superior to FCP (faster too) and it's slow as a dog compared to the two I mentioned above.

If you don't believe me, I've been running the following video editing benchmarking site for a few years now:

Video Editing Benches

So, saying the Mac is great at video editing is simply ridiculous.


Maybe someone can clear this up for me too. Why exactly is OS X superior to Win XP/Win2000? What does it DO? And don't tell me about stability or compatibility, my XP box NEVER crashes and I have NO problems installing scanners, card readers, TV tuners, firewire devices, etc...