Apple no longer a graphics powerhouse?

[chsh1ca]

Just read an article on this Page at adobe. It seems to me that Apple is no longer able to put up the argument that they're the thing for graphics designers, since the PC just slaughtered them in the tests.

Personally, I think the reasoning is threefold:
1) Adobe hasn't optimized their software for Dual G4s.
2) The x86 chips have scaled incredibly even in the last year, and have left basically all other chips in the dust.
3) They are still using old bus technologies. Let's face it, a 133MHz SDR FSB no longer cuts it in today's world, at minimum most of us are probably using a 133DDR system (266), and more than likely a fair number of us are using 333/400/533 based systems.

Comments/thoughts/suggestions/flames?

 

[Smilin]

Apple no longer a graphics powerhouse?

yep.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

I'm not even going to bother to point out all the gross inaccuracies in your statement. I'm a PC user and advocate, but your ignorance is astounding.

Just be happy I'm not a Mac fanatic, or there'd be a three-page flame below my name.

- M4H

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
I'm not even going to bother to point out all the gross inaccuracies in your statement.

hehe yeah, 133Mhz SDR FSB hehe. You'd think apple has never heard of DDR. He's gonna get flamed so bad in this. I'm gonna come back in a couple days and see what it's degenerated to on page 3.

 

[TweakageMan]

Apple invented DDR

 

[Glitchny]

Originally posted by: TweakageMan
Apple invented DDR

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: TweakageMan
Apple invented DDR

then why don't they use it more?

 

[Spicedaddy]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
I'm not even going to bother to point out all the gross inaccuracies in your statement.

hehe yeah, 133Mhz SDR FSB hehe. You'd think apple has never heard of DDR. He's gonna get flamed so bad in this. I'm gonna come back in a couple days and see what it's degenerated to on page 3.

The latest G4 (1.25 and 1.42 GHz) still uses a 166MHz SDR FSB. The 1 GHz uses 133MHz SDR FSB. Should I flame you now or wait for page 3?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
I'm not even going to bother to point out all the gross inaccuracies in your statement. I'm a PC user and advocate, but your ignorance is astounding.

Just be happy I'm not a Mac fanatic, or there'd be a three-page flame below my name.

- M4H

What an incredibly rude statement... You don't have to insult the guy.:|

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
I'm not even going to bother to point out all the gross inaccuracies in your statement. I'm a PC user and advocate, but your ignorance is astounding.

Just be happy I'm not a Mac fanatic, or there'd be a three-page flame below my name.

- M4H

What an incredibly rude statement... You don't have to insult the guy.:|

especially when he's wrong. what a jerk.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

What's wrong with ragging an inferior product? Apple is seriously lacking in performance, no longer can they compete as they've been forced to offer SMP solutions merely to keep up with performance. They're better off desiging "nifty" solutions such as their 17" notebook and the new imac... those thing may kick ass but they leave a lot to be desired if you want the "niftiness" along with PC performance. Apples seem to be very niche machines, and right now it just seems to me that those niches are expiring...

I've got a close friend who use to be a huge Apple fanatic, he'd had good reasons too, but now he's all PC thanks to Linux...complete turn around. The hardware is apparently superior on all counts (cheaper too), the only thing Apple seemingly has going for it is software and asthetic design, the latter of the two you can survive without.

 

[TweakageMan]

I agree that apple is no longer what it used to be. I think when AMD declares bankruptcy, it would be great to see Apple buy them up. Now that would be a great combination. Unfortunately now-a-days, apple's processors are no longer "superior". Sure, a 1.26GHz apple beats out a 1.7GHz Pentium 4..... but when I can get a Pentium 2.6GHz for less money than a 1.26ghz apple, well, the choice is obvious. However, we need to remember that apple is still a very fast computer. Their new Dual 1.42GHz is extremely fast. No, it's not as fast as a Pentium 4 3.06ghz, but still fast enough for everything pretty much. It's just a shame that it's so much more money. But hey, apple makes alot of money, so they msut be doing something right......

 

[bunnyfubbles]

The minute Apple can compete with Microsoft is the minute I'll believe an AMD/Apple partnership would be a good idea, right now Apple machines are extremely restrictive with what they allow average users to do, concerning hardware and software. I'd much rather see Apple go towards a focus of producing just software/OSes rather than hardware. The reason they are so far behind is that they have to R&D everything that goes into their systems where as with PC's you've got dozens of companies competing for top performance with which motherboards/chipsets/CPUs/GPUs you have access to. Fierce competition between intel and AMD on one PC platform is what led to such a skyrocket in CPU scaling and performance. Whereas Apple is competing with the PC as a whole, which practically means Moterolla is competing against both Intel and AMD as a pair, not individually, and just going up against Intel alone is probably scarey enough.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Spicedaddy

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
I'm not even going to bother to point out all the gross inaccuracies in your statement.

hehe yeah, 133Mhz SDR FSB hehe. You'd think apple has never heard of DDR. He's gonna get flamed so bad in this. I'm gonna come back in a couple days and see what it's degenerated to on page 3.

The latest G4 (1.25 and 1.42 GHz) still uses a 166MHz SDR FSB. The 1 GHz uses 133MHz SDR FSB. Should I flame you now or wait for page 3?

You should probably wait till page 3 dumbass. Unless of course you think you can stuff any more of your foot in your mouth.

 

[nemesismk2]

Apple are still in business? I thought they had gone bankrupt years ago, so what's the ratio of pc v apple users these days? I imagine the gap is now huge, 1million pc users to 1 apple user a realistic figure?

 

[Goi]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Spicedaddy

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
I'm not even going to bother to point out all the gross inaccuracies in your statement.

hehe yeah, 133Mhz SDR FSB hehe. You'd think apple has never heard of DDR. He's gonna get flamed so bad in this. I'm gonna come back in a couple days and see what it's degenerated to on page 3.

The latest G4 (1.25 and 1.42 GHz) still uses a 166MHz SDR FSB. The 1 GHz uses 133MHz SDR FSB. Should I flame you now or wait for page 3?

You should probably wait till page 3 dumbass. Unless of course you think you can stuff any more of your foot in your mouth.

He was talking about the FSB, and the page that you linked to shows exactly that - 133MHz and 166MHz FSBs, which are probably SDR, not DDR. What's DDR is the memory support and the L3 cache. The FSB is still SDR AFAIK. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong since I'm no mac expert...

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Goi

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Spicedaddy

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
I'm not even going to bother to point out all the gross inaccuracies in your statement.

hehe yeah, 133Mhz SDR FSB hehe. You'd think apple has never heard of DDR. He's gonna get flamed so bad in this. I'm gonna come back in a couple days and see what it's degenerated to on page 3.

The latest G4 (1.25 and 1.42 GHz) still uses a 166MHz SDR FSB. The 1 GHz uses 133MHz SDR FSB. Should I flame you now or wait for page 3?

You should probably wait till page 3 dumbass. Unless of course you think you can stuff any more of your foot in your mouth.

He was talking about the FSB, and the page that you linked to shows exactly that - 133MHz and 166MHz FSBs, which are probably SDR, not DDR. What's DDR is the memory support and the L3 cache. The FSB is still SDR AFAIK. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong since I'm no mac expert...

Ok, guys I'm beginning to think I'm the only literate person here. That last link I posted (in the quote above) takes you to the specifications on the G4. It clearly states DDR memory. How can you read the 133Mhz and 166Mhz spec on that page and then state "which are probably SDR, not DDR." when not 2 characters away the page says frickin DDR?? It also uses PC2100 or PC2700 memory. If you can get these modules to work on any SDR system let me know and I'll happily flame myself.

And another news flash...if you have DDR memory then the bus it's sitting on is DDR as well. Just because the spec says 133 on the bus doesn't mean it's SDR. Both 266Mhz DDR memory and 133Mhz SDR memory run at 133Mhz. Maybe there's some misunderstanding here about what exactly DDR is. I think you guys have some reading to do.

Again, I agree the macs are getting their butts handed to them but you need to get your facts straight...or start passing them off as opinions rather than fact.

 

[Goi]

I'm not entirely familiar with the mac architecture, but its entirely possible that a SDR FSB interface could support DDR memory, the same way a DDR FSB could support SDR memory, as in the case of the ECS K7S5A in the PC world. That might not be the way Apple is doing things, but from a marketing standpoint(and Apple is VERY good at marketing), I don't think they'd specify their FSB as 133/166MHz if it was in fact DDR - they'd have claimed it as 266/333MHz just to have higher numbers. Intel/AMD are doing that, and I highly doubt Apple would NOT do that if they had the chance to.

Based on that I'd say the 133/166MHz FSB is SDR based. Again, feel free to correct me if you have information proving otherwise...

 

[stockspeedsrule]

Ok, guys I'm beginning to think I'm the only literate person here

.

Then please explain to us the relevance of this thread to the video section.

No offense folks but I opened this thread hoping to learn a bit about the state of Graphics cards, IQ etc in the Apple market but it seems that almost any thread in the video forum these days is flame bait.

:disgust:

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: stockspeedsrule

Ok, guys I'm beginning to think I'm the only literate person here

.

Then please explain to us the relevance of this thread to the video section.

No offense folks but I opened this thread hoping to learn a bit about the state of Graphics cards, IQ etc in the Apple market but it seems that almost any thread in the video forum these days is flame bait.

:disgust:

It's nothing to do with the video forum. It's just there are a number of topics that never have clean threads: Apple vs PC, PC vs Console, AMD vs Intel, ATI vs nVidia. Besides, you're kinda beating a dead horse. This topic has been hit at least a couple times in the last month already.

 

[chsh1ca]

Actually, I opened the thread regarding Adobe's comments. I did not take any stance per se, I merely pointed out what I believed to be the reasoning for the Macs getting beat down in the tests.

http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html <--- According to this page, it is a 133MHz/166MHz bus and coincidentally, they say: "Up to 167MHz system bus supporting over 1.3GBps data throughput." DDR 133 should provide 2.1GBps, therefore, it's an SDR FSB.

So, MercenaryForHire, please explain where my ignorance in posting *THEORIES* designed to try and bring some intelligent discussion to the table is. Until your post that seemed possible. As for my use of the 133MHz bus in my statements, you'll note I was comparing it immediately to the minimum speed of 266(133DDR) that a majority of users here would likely be using. Surely even those of us with older systems are probably using 133MHz FSBs, although the leap from SDR to DDR/QDR happened pretty quickly.

Anyways, now that the idiots have stood up and clearly identified themselves and are now out of the way, back to my original question:
Comments/thoughts/suggestions/(flames no longer necessary) regarding Adobe's tests and why you think the Intel chip outperformed the Dual G4s so atrociously.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: stockspeedsrule
No offense folks but I opened this thread hoping to learn a bit about the state of Graphics cards, IQ etc in the Apple market but it seems that almost any thread in the video forum these days is flame bait.

:disgust:

What, and you think I was hoping for anything less? Instead I get a bunch of sadly outdated anti-Macintosh sentiments, incorrect backup, and called names by someone whose nick has origins of a bizarre psychological complex involving sexual relations with one's mother. Oh, and it's spelled "Oedipus" ... "Jerk".

And yes, I did have to insult him. A light slap across the face from a PC user in the form of "how dare you" as opposed to a full-on beating from a rabid Macmonkey is definitely preferable. I had hoped this thread would just die off, as it was happily doing.

- M4H

 

[Spicedaddy]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Goi

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Spicedaddy

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
I'm not even going to bother to point out all the gross inaccuracies in your statement.

hehe yeah, 133Mhz SDR FSB hehe. You'd think apple has never heard of DDR. He's gonna get flamed so bad in this. I'm gonna come back in a couple days and see what it's degenerated to on page 3.

The latest G4 (1.25 and 1.42 GHz) still uses a 166MHz SDR FSB. The 1 GHz uses 133MHz SDR FSB. Should I flame you now or wait for page 3?

You should probably wait till page 3 dumbass. Unless of course you think you can stuff any more of your foot in your mouth.

He was talking about the FSB, and the page that you linked to shows exactly that - 133MHz and 166MHz FSBs, which are probably SDR, not DDR. What's DDR is the memory support and the L3 cache. The FSB is still SDR AFAIK. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong since I'm no mac expert...

Ok, guys I'm beginning to think I'm the only literate person here. That last link I posted (in the quote above) takes you to the specifications on the G4. It clearly states DDR memory. How can you read the 133Mhz and 166Mhz spec on that page and then state "which are probably SDR, not DDR." when not 2 characters away the page says frickin DDR?? It also uses PC2100 or PC2700 memory. If you can get these modules to work on any SDR system let me know and I'll happily flame myself.

And another news flash...if you have DDR memory then the bus it's sitting on is DDR as well. Just because the spec says 133 on the bus doesn't mean it's SDR. Both 266Mhz DDR memory and 133Mhz SDR memory run at 133Mhz. Maybe there's some misunderstanding here about what exactly DDR is. I think you guys have some reading to do.

Again, I agree the macs are getting their butts handed to them but you need to get your facts straight...or start passing them off as opinions rather than fact.

No, you're the only fsckin' moron in this thread stupid enough to not understand that a CPU front side bus is different than memory interface, and what's even more amazing is you keep insulting people because you're so convinced you can't be wrong. Yes, the CPU FSB can be SDR, with the chipset using DDR memory. (Via Apollo Pro 266 chipset is a good example, P3 has a SDR FSB, and the chipset supports DDR ram))

This is exactly the case with (even the latest) PowerMac G4. It also means that using DDR memory yields almost no performance advantage over SDR memory, because it's crippled by the SDR FSB. For christ's sake, the link you posted even says the FSB is 133MHz or 167MHz... (if it was DDR, it would say 266 and 333)


Please stop embarassing yourself, dumbass. I think you have some reading to do, dumbass. And about my foot, I think it's a little too busy kicking your sorry @ss to be anywhere near my mouth.

Have a nice day.

 

[AtomicDude512]

 

[AtomicDude512]

Originally posted by: TweakageMan
Apple invented DDR

RAMBUS invented DDR I thought...besides, why hasn't Apple upped their FSB? All that extra bandwidth is going to waste, except for suckering computer illiterate doctors.