• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Carmack on G4 Vs P3

Link: Carmack on G4 Vs P3



<< The 733 G4 was not as fast as my 1 ghz PIII in any of the trouble areas.

Apple is doing a lot of good work, but the CPU's just aren't as fast as the x86 ones.

AltiVec can compensate in some cases, because it is way, way easier to program for than SSE, but it takes a very simple batched, computation intensive task for it to pay off in any noticable way. Amdahls law and all that.

We did a couple functions with AltiVec, but they didn't make much difference.

Video encoding and large image processing are two areas that it can pay off, because you may be spending 90%+ of your time in one page of code.

Even then, it takes a special balance to let a G4 come out ahead, because it has less memory bandwidthd than a high end x86 system.

John Carmack
>>

 
Czar, Czar:


<< in your face mac users bahhahah >>

Macophiles have always touted their photoshop benchies as proof that Macs are faster than PCs, this won't change that. If you had told Hitler that Facism is a bad idea would he have listened? If you had told Stalin that Communism is a bad idea, would he have listened? I think it's safe to say No and No. So why would you expect Steve Jobs to listen when you tell him that high photoshop scores don't make a good CPU?

Although, I must say I agree with you. And it's nice to see someone highly respected like John Carmack point out specific facts and reasons on P3 vs G4 and not just random flame wars the subject usually spews.
 
Soooo, would I be out of line assuming the 1 Ghz T-Bird would at least equal or out perform a 1 Ghz P3?

Regardless though, I think when speaking of bang for buck, his post is right on the money. What does a 733Mhz G4 (top of the line Mac) box cost vs a 1Ghz Tbird or P3 (not even top of the line x86)?

The argument should end there. But if you ever want to play a mean deathmatch game of photoshop, the Macs users will once again flaunt their superiority.
 
Noriaki

this was meant a sarcasm, a joke. I know that macs are only good for photoshop (mostly because its optimised and it uses SCSI hd's).
 
macophiles wont listen because they cant justify the cost of thier purple orbs if they found out x86 pc's are faster in everything else that matters.

loosbrew
 
I know you were joking Czar, and I was to. I think that Steve Jobs in an idiot and a lunatic, but I don't think he's Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin crazy.
 


<< I know that macs are only good for photoshop (mostly because its optimised and it uses SCSI hd's). >>

Macs don't use SCSI anymore. All the main systems are IDE.

Anyways, if you read further down in the thread, there is acknowledgement that the Mac does very well with 2D graphics, video, and sound.

I personally consider the PC a better all around machine (if I build it to spec myself), but for specific people and specific uses, the G4 can be superior especially if the software is Altivec optimized (like Photoshop). After all, most Mac users I know don't even play 3D games. Gaming is important to me, but not to everyone. It is interesting to note, however, that Quake III for OS X is 20% faster than for OS 9 (but it still doesn't match PC speeds). I always find it bizarre though that many PC users consider FPS the only measure of speed and functionality.

However, I still say OS 9 sucks. I really hope there is good software support for OS X.
 
Macs use IDE as a standard interface now. SCSI is optional. Apple is pushing to replace external SCSI devices with FireWire (IEEE 1394). The really funny part here is that Macophiles can no longer use SCSI to justify the significantly higher cost of Macs over PCs.
 
Market share will ALWAYS keep Apple out of the market.
Plus macs are just no fun...you can't overclock a mac with water-cooling and arctic silver 🙂
with a mac, what you buy is what you get...there's no squeezing extra performance gains out of it
its just not appealing to me.

Only mac I'd ever possibly get is an OS X enabled laptop. I'd watch DVDs on it and program on it since the
OS is just FreeBSD. There'd be no need to OC or play games on it. I think Apple should focus on their laptops and high end graphics workstations (for Toy Story type stuff).

Right now they're just kidding themselves thinking they can bite into the Intel/AMD market share.
 


<< Right now they're just kidding themselves thinking they can bite into the Intel/AMD market share. >>

Well, I agree to a certain extent, but believe it or not during its first year the much hated iMac was Japan's best selling model of desktop of all time. I'm not saying I love the iMac (because I don't) but it's interesting info nonetheless.
 
Eug, that's because PC's have a more diversified list of desktops to choose from. That's like when 3DFX was saying that they held the most unit sales. The total number of NVidia cards totaled higher, but since they were spread out between different manufacturers, no single unit sold as much as the Voodoo3 (etc.).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top