Apple no longer a graphics powerhouse?

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
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 Instead I get a bunch of sadly outdated anti-Macintosh sentiments, incorrect backup, and called names by someone whose nick has origins of a bizarre psychological complex involving sexual relations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".

Outdated? The current specs listed at Apple's PowerMac specs page lists the 167MHz FSB as providing 1.3GBps bandwidth. It's really terrible that you didn't bother to actually read the page you linked, and instead had to go on ranting about 'anti-Macintosh sentiments' (of which on my part there were zero), and 'incorrect backup' which must be more about yourself than anyone else.

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.

An insult by someone more informed than yourself I would take as meaningful.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: 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.

Yep, I'm gonna have to suck this one up. You're right. I've just never heard of anything since like the AMD 760 & VIA KT266 days that actually had a memory bus running differently than the FSB. I'm quite aware of the difference between the FSB and memory though. I just looked at the DDR and assumed. Now I'm gonna have to stand next to you on your side of the issue with my jaw dropped wondering why the fizuk apple did this. Not wonder very much mind you, I'll never own a Mac myself as much as I like their OS. As for the reasons apple is falling behind it really doesn't have a lot to do with this. The G4 architecture isn't really that bad. It's kinda similar to the Nforce 1/2. Even a slower fsb doesn't really hurt them that bad. What really hurts is those motorola chips they use. Sure it's got higher ipc than a p4 but not the double that would be required to keep up with intel's clockspeeds. Apple bitches at motorola about not putting enough r&d together then motorola bitches back at apple that they can't *afford* enough r&d unless their hands are untied to sell these chips to mac clones.

Meanwhile here I am beating the dead horse with you guys again. Apples performance issues have been discussed again and again and again on this forum. I think the last thread got to be five or six pages long and it ALWAYS degenerates into some flame war - I should have known better than to participate in another thread on this topic (and then go and start and lose the war on my own d'oh!).

hehe I think I made you pop a vein in your forehead though so at least I got a chuckle out of it.

 

[Spicedaddy]

There you go, you have seen the light and now this thread can go back to a peaceful discussion...

 

[chsh1ca]

Haha.

Anyways, like I said, there are a lot of pros to using a mac, and in fact, having worked with some teachers, I would recommend it for teachers who aren't teaching IT because frankly, educators aren't the most educatable about using a computer (as amusing as that notion is).

The creation of this thread was geared more towards the fact that Apple has long been the friend of graphics designers. The raw calculation throughput of the G3s and the early G4s relative to the x86 chips made them the best choice for graphics designers. Unfortunately, it looks like this is no longer the case, and it appears on the surface like Adobe, possibly the largest independant Apple supporting company, didn't put a whole lot of push in optimizing their offerings for the Mac, but did so for the PC.

Now, if you're apple, is this the sort of thing you do not want to be seeing, or is it alright because Mac Users won't really care, they're there mainly for the OS?

I think it's probably a combination of both the former and the latter.

 

[BFG10K]

I'd argue that Macs have not been graphics powerhouses for a few years now except the trickling stream of benchmarks showing Macs getting killed by PCs are only now starting to get recognised.

And yes, Macs do use DDR memory but their FSBs are SDR.

 

[newbiepcuser]

Everybody is pointing out how powerful the hardware is, but in the end, its the end user who is going to produce the work. If the person is more comfortable with the OS X environment and vice versa on the PC this will determine the productivity of the work. This bench marks are more for marketing ploy for both sides in my opinion.

 

[Goi]

Well, for digital video editing, I think Macs still have the edge, software wise, if not hardware wise. Since Final Cut Pro is only available on the Mac, many would still wanna use it because its so much better than anything on Windows.

 

[Tates]

Word on the street is that Apple will dump Motorola and go with Intel.

No lie.

 

[RyanM]

Even more funny was when Maximum PC pitted a dual Xeon and dual Athlon MP system against a dual G4 Mac. The Mac ended up looking like a toddler's playtoy in every single benchmark. It was even more of a decimation than those benchmarks the thread-starter posted.

I do graphics design, and I've been trying to tell my thick-skulled brethren that Macs are playtoys for the last 3 years. It's nice to see places are finally running the benchmarks to prove it.

And I like how even Adobe points to the PC as the performance king. That carries a lot of weight. Shame they used a Dell for the tests though.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Tates
Word on the street is that Apple will dump Motorola and go with Intel.

No lie.

That's been a rumor for a while. Apple is the only company that has succesfully pulled off what intel is trying to do with the itanium: completely change architecture without losing all your customers. They might be able to do it some day but I don't see it happening immediately. Motorola better get their sh1t together though.

Imagive what would happen to the open source movement and linux in the x86 world if the Mac switched to a compatible architecture while running a Unix based OS. You would have for the first time software that could run on both a mac and a PC and wouldn't involve microsoft.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: Tates
Word on the street is that Apple will dump Motorola and go with Intel.

No lie.

IBM and its 970 is the current front runner in the "who will replace Moto" race.


Lethal

 

[Keysplayr]

Here is a link to an article showing Industrial Light and Magic changing over to Intel "render farms" as opposed to (although they don't come out and say it for fear of being sued by Apple) SGI and Macintosh. Intels price/performance ratio dominates over other "proprietary" solutions. So yes, PC based systems are and have been exceeding the performance of "other" available systems. Intel based or AMD. X86 architecture and/or 64bit Itanium or AMD alternative.

Link

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Here is a link to an article showing Industrial Light and Magic changing over to Intel "render farms" as opposed to (although they don't come out and say it for fear of being sued by Apple) SGI and Macintosh. Intels price/performance ratio dominates over other "proprietary" solutions. So yes, PC based systems are and have been exceeding the performance of "other" available systems. Intel based or AMD. X86 architecture and/or 64bit Itanium or AMD alternative.

Link

That is going to get posted on the bulletin board in the graphics design department of my school. That might make them just as pissed as those Maximum PC benchmarks I posted there a few weeks ago. Mwuahhahhahhaah.

 

[SickBeast]

It's not really Apple's fault; whoever makes their cpu's is terrible. Intel and AMD are sooooo much more powerful than anything on the Apple side.

I'm curious about the IA64 thing...once Apple switches to Intel, what will be the difference between macs and pcs? Software only?

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
It's not really Apple's fault; whoever makes their cpu's is terrible. Intel and AMD are sooooo much more powerful than anything on the Apple side.

I'm curious about the IA64 thing...once Apple switches to Intel, what will be the difference between macs and pcs? Software only?

Moterolla makes the G4 CPUs for apple, they aren't terrible and it isn't entirely their fault. Heck, apple doesn't even have to stick with using Moterolla, they just wanted to make sure they were using hardware parts in their PC's that would make their customers become nearly completely dependent upon apple for everything.

 

[RyanM]

There is a reason Apple doesn't just use off-the-shelf parts for their computers - It would put them out of business.

Consider this:

Apple makes two things - Apple operating systems, and Apple computer systems. They design the operating system exclusively for the hardware both they and other companies make. They offer a complete solution in one package - An apple.

Now imagine Apple stops making/liscensing/approving the hardware. They just make operating systems. And the operating systems can be run on any platform.

They would be a software company then. And Microsoft would CRUSH them like a bug.

Let's say they just make the hardware, and encourage other companies to port their OS's to their architecture.

At that point, they'd be a hardware company, and would have to compete with Intel and AMD. They would, once again, be crushed like bugs.

The only chance Apple has is to carve itself a niche and win a few converts every now and then. They have the latter covered, but unfortunately, their niches are being eroded slowly every day.

At their current rate, I give them a lifespan of 3 more years. After that, if they haven't changed some stuff up, they're toast.

 

[Guspaz]

I stopped caring about Apple when they ditched the MC68040 and made all new software incompatible with my macintosh. Seeing as how we had just purchased the Mac, we didn't much care for Apple for trying to force us to buy an entirely new computer right away.

I'm sorry, I don't call that a successfull switchover.

 

[pinki]

and then reality sets in....

if you havent forgot apple has about 10% of the software hardware market correct

can you name any other single company that has that much grip on the entire pc industry

none

intel has about 80 percent of the x86 cpu market which is less than 10% of the whole industry so 80% of 10% is 8% which is still less than apple

microsoft has a huge grip on the market as well with abouty 95% x86 os market which is 9.5 percent of the total market

if you buy apple you buy from apple

if you buy x86 you could buy from any company you want you could avoid microsoft or avoid paying them you could go amd not intel if you but apple you buy apple

same senario with ati and nvida even though nvia has more market share ati has been making more money caus ethey have been making their own cards not just selling chips

 

[chsh1ca]

Can I have a link to those figures? Because they seem WAAY off...

 

[Goi]

Where'd you get those figures? Also, how are they measuring market share? By revenue? Installed user base? Share prices? I guess that also makes a difference?

I don't think the x86 market is worth only 10% of the entire PC market though. From what I can name, the other major hardware players are Motorola, IBM, HP, Sun and SGI. HP and SGI have already joined forces with intel. Sun Microsystems have been waning for a couple of years now, so really only Mot and IBM are still in the game.

 

[RyanM]

Those figures come from the exact same place that Macaholics spew all their other "incredible" figures that "prove" Macs are better.

It's an orifice located a little under 3 feet below their non-functioning mental processing units.

I'll let you read between the lines.

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: MachFive
Those figures come from the exact same place that Macaholics spew all their other "incredible" figures that "prove" Macs are better.

It's an orifice located a little under 3 feet below their non-functioning mental processing units.

I'll let you read between the lines.

i didn't know that the flamnox was a data receptacle

 

[Haribo]

http://www.mac-sucks.com

 

[Guspaz]

Originally posted by: pinki
and then reality sets in....

if you havent forgot apple has about 10% of the software hardware market correct

can you name any other single company that has that much grip on the entire pc industry

none

intel has about 80 percent of the x86 cpu market which is less than 10% of the whole industry so 80% of 10% is 8% which is still less than apple

microsoft has a huge grip on the market as well with abouty 95% x86 os market which is 9.5 percent of the total market

if you buy apple you buy from apple

if you buy x86 you could buy from any company you want you could avoid microsoft or avoid paying them you could go amd not intel if you but apple you buy apple

same senario with ati and nvida even though nvia has more market share ati has been making more money caus ethey have been making their own cards not just selling chips

90% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Including this one. PROVE it. Back up your rediculous statements.

 

[jlarsson]

from here ...

And I'll tell you something else -- the Mac can't brag about balanced architecture, and that's why it's not able to take full advantage of its new DDR memory.