NASA publishes first 3rd party benches of Apple G5 machine vs. P4.

[Nebor]

You've got the world against you. Oh the self righteousness of the noble mac user... fighting against the injustices of the evil and corrupt PC world... in the name of their lord and savior, Steve Jobs. Fight on little mac users... you're all alone in the world.

PS... Windows should detect macs operating on the network w/ them and kill them. Then your powerbook would be annihilated by your realcomputer.

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: EdipisReks
why don't you go do a google search on "g4 overclock"?

Overclocking your G4
Because everyone loves taking a soldering iron to a brand new $2000 machine!

- M4H

hey, if anything, Apple modders are much more hardcore than PC modders. pie in your eye, there, buddy .

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: Nebor
You've got the world against you. Oh the self righteousness of the noble mac user... fighting against the injustices of the evil and corrupt PC world... in the name of their lord and savior, Steve Jobs. Fight on little mac users... you're all alone in the world.

PS... Windows should detect macs operating on the network w/ them and kill them. Then your powerbook would be annihilated by your realcomputer.

ooh ooh ooh. *sigh* to be 14 years old, again.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: EdipisReks

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: EdipisReks
why don't you go do a google search on "g4 overclock"?

Overclocking your G4
Because everyone loves taking a soldering iron to a brand new $2000 machine!

- M4H

hey, if anything, Apple modders are much more hardcore than PC modders. pie in your eye, there, buddy .

Google "Liquid Nitrogen Cooling" and tell me how many Mac pages you get.

- M4H

 

[Pariah]

actually, the Apple upgrade market is booming. go look for powerlogix, sonnet, etc. apple users replace their machines much less often than PC users do, so i don't know how the stigma about apple users throwing their machines away to upgrade came about.

Because that's how Apple designed their market. Looking at the Apple Store on their site, there are no CPU, video card, or sound card upgrades available which beyond storage is the most commonly upgraded components among PC users. I've seen sound and video card upgrades available in the CompUSA Apple sections, but the selection is terrible and the prices are not competitive with the PC market. The business model is great for Apple, because their dedicated users have the lemming mentality and just take whatever Apple will give them regardless of whether it is best for them. Why should Apple stop screwing their customers, if their customers are too blind to realize they are getting screwed?

not quite as idiotic as "And your proof of this is where? How useful are 3D Studio benchmarks to the typical user?", though.

Why? Because you don't have the proof, and personal attacks is the easier response?

 

[Nebor]

ooh ooh ooh. *sigh* to be 14 years old, again.

I work in the information systems department of JCPenneys... guess how many macs are in my dept. Go on, guess... Oh that's right, none. The only Macs at Penneys are in advertising\design depts at Legacy.

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: Pariah

actually, the Apple upgrade market is booming. go look for powerlogix, sonnet, etc. apple users replace their machines much less often than PC users do, so i don't know how the stigma about apple users throwing their machines away to upgrade came about.

Because that's how Apple designed their market. Looking at the Apple Store on their site, there are no CPU, video card, or sound card upgrades available which beyond storage is the most commonly upgraded components among PC users. I've seen sound and video card upgrades available at CompUSA Apple sections, but the selection is terrible and the prices are not competitive with the PC market. The business models is great for Apple, because their dedicated users have the lemming mentality and just take whatever Apple will give them regardless of whether it is best for them.

not quite as idiotic as "And your proof of this is where? How useful are 3D Studio benchmarks to the typical user?", though.

Why? Because you don't have the proof, and personal attacks is the easier response?

it wasn't a personal attack. you said that early PIV's didn't benefit from compiler optimizations, i said that in my experience they did, and all of a sudden real world anecdote of productivity software wasn't a way of determining whether the PIV's relative performance changed. i'm sorry i don't have concrete numbers for you, but it has been 2 years since i used 3dstudio, and the box that i worked with wasn't owned by me and probably doesn't even exist anymore.

if you knew dedicated Apple users, you would know that your characterization is incorrect. dedicated Apple users generally get attached to their computers (for whatever stupid reason they have) and go out of their ways to use it as long as possible. if Sony had a B&M computer store, i doubt that they would have many components for upgrades, as they would want you to buy a new computer. i don't see too many upgrades on the Sony computer website, either. that doesn't mean that said upgrades don't exist.

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: Nebor

ooh ooh ooh. *sigh* to be 14 years old, again.

I work in the information systems department of JCPenneys... guess how many macs are in my dept. Go on, guess... Oh that's right, none. The only Macs at Penneys are in advertising\design depts at Legacy.

ooh ooh ooh. you are so impressive. of course, you never stop to think that maybe it is because JCPenny, like most companies, buys the absolute cheapest computer that will do the job. not necessarily the best job, but the minumum necessary. the absolute cheapest computer that will do the job in the minimal necessary capacity is generally a PC.

 

[Nebor]

And so you admit that in the budget category, the PC rules. Uhuh, I thought so.

Well, we all know that in the high end category, the PC also rules. Can you even run 3dmark2001 on a mac?

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: Nebor
And so you admit that in the budget category, the PC rules. Uhuh, I thought so.

Well, we all know that in the high end category, the PC also rules. Can you even run 3dmark2001 on a mac?

of course PC's rule in the budget category. they can be made cheaply. why would i want to run 3dMark2001 on my PC, let alone my Mac? it is a worthless program.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Nebor
And so you admit that in the budget category, the PC rules. Uhuh, I thought so.

Well, we all know that in the high end category, the PC also rules. Can you even run 3dmark2001 on a mac?

Okay, I've been having a war with Edipis here, but I'm going to have to turn around and pimpslap a member within my own ranks. How you can even make noise with your head that far up your ass astounds me, and I've worked as an IT admin.

- M4H

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Nebor
And so you admit that in the budget category, the PC rules. Uhuh, I thought so.

Well, we all know that in the high end category, the PC also rules. Can you even run 3dmark2001 on a mac?

Okay, I've been having a war with Edipis here, but I'm going to have to turn around and pimpslap a member within my own ranks. How you can even make noise with your head that far up your ass astounds me, and I've worked as an IT admin.

- M4H

lol. we aren't having a war, M4H. you are one of the few members of this forum i respect anymore. and despite Pariah's misinformed decisions about certain things, he is as well.

 

[Eug]

Google "Liquid Nitrogen Cooling" and tell me how many Mac pages you get.

None I hope.

Personally I think it's bizarre that anyone does this.

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: Eug

Google "Liquid Nitrogen Cooling" and tell me how many Mac pages you get.

None I hope.

Personally I think it's bizarre that anyone does this.

but teh 3 secodn screneshot is teh winnar!

 

[Pariah]

[ i said that in my experience they did, and all of a sudden real world anecdote of productivity software wasn't a way of determining whether the PIV's relative performance changed.

There is a difference between real world and real world useful. I don't know anyone who personally owns 3DStudio Max and uses it at home. Typical users would be far more apt to be gaming (real games, not 3DMark) or media encoding for the CPU intensive applications.

if Sony had a B&M computer store, i doubt that they would have many components for upgrades, as they would want you to buy a new computer.

I assume you've never been to a Gateway store then.

i don't see too many upgrades on the Sony computer website, either. that doesn't mean that said upgrades don't exist.

PC manufacturers don't typically sell addon's seperately because there is an entire upgrade industry which you somehow seemed to have missed. The "Apple architecture" is theirs alone. As such, they should make upgrades readily available at their store since upgrades aren't available everywhere like PC components are.

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: Pariah

[ i said that in my experience they did, and all of a sudden real world anecdote of productivity software wasn't a way of determining whether the PIV's relative performance changed.

There is a difference between real world and real world useful. I don't know anyone who personally owns 3DStudio Max and uses it at home. Typical users would be far more apt to be gaming (real games, not 3DMark) or media encoding for the CPU intensive applications.

if Sony had a B&M computer store, i doubt that they would have many components for upgrades, as they would want you to buy a new computer.

I assume you've never been to a Gateway store then.

i don't see too many upgrades on the Sony computer website, either. that doesn't mean that said upgrades don't exist.

PC manufacturers don't typically sell addon's seperately because there is an entire upgrade industry which you somehow seemed to have missed. The "Apple architecture" is theirs alone. As such, they should make upgrades readily available at their store since upgrades aren't available everywhere like PC components are.

there is an entire upgrade industry for Apple, too. it is smaller, but it is definitely there. why you can't understand is beyond me. and since when did only performance for the "typical" user really matter? especially when we are talking in a thread that is about NASA software. regardless, compiler optimizations have improved PIV relative processor performance, just as they do for any processor.

 

[jakobkraft]

Originally posted by: EdipisReks

Originally posted by: Nebor

i know, i know, i know. i love my PowerBook to death, but it seems that some people are just willfully moronic.

I'd say happily naive. Even if a Mac was better in every way, I wouldn't want to know about it, or use it. Ever. It's the principal of the thing. I'm a mac hater, for life.

that is about the most idiotic thing i have ever read.

Is there a chance that you just hate PCs? I myself don't hate Macs, I use Macs at work, and I come home to a PC. I have to say, being proficient in both, I prefer PCs, even though I can admit that OS X is outstanding. You should remember, also, that people resent how much more expensive they are than PC's, (particularly given the longtime hindrance of their motorola processors, which I know has come to an end) because aesthetics DO play a formidable part (residents of NY, if you've attended the Jacob Javitz Convention Center the year the Apple president was there, donning his trendy black turtleneck and blue jeans, you would have a crisp memory of him admitting that very thing to a press agent) so you can't go ballistic because some people hate Macs indiscriminately. I truly believe that if they were to become more competitively priced, others would be less inclined to rant.

My two cents.

 

[jakobkraft]

I will add that if they have gone significantly down in price, my humblest apologies...

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: jakobkraft
Is there a chance that you just hate PCs?

yeah, i currently own 3 PC's and build a new new main box every 9 months or so, but i hate PC's. a check of my signature would have dispelled that idea.

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: jakobkraft
I will add that if they have gone significantly down in price, my humblest apologies...

historically speaking, Apple computers are very cheap right now.

 

[Nebor]

I'm just making flame bait. I'm actually a reasonable person. I even considered buying a mac a couple months back, because a friend of mine impressed me with his. But since I didn't buy the mac, I am now sworn to rail against them...

 

[jbond04]

EdipisReks, I'm not sure how sound your logic is here...you say that as compilers and software become optimized and the G5 ramps up in speed, it will be able to compete with high-end P4's...but your assumption kind of rests on something silly like "the P4 isn't going to get any faster". One word for you: Prescott. When Intel released the Pentium 4, they had a clear roadmap of where they were going with it. Everyone (at least, everyone who stayed informed), knew about the upcoming Northwood core revision, and nice people like Wingznut were there to let us know that it would offer a significant performance boost.

Sure, the P4 wasn't a stellar performer when it debuted. BUT, it had tons of performance potential and a clear way to reach it. Yeah, the 2GHz G5 is a big leap in the Macintosh world...but it's not like the PC world doesn't get those leaps, either. Prescott will be able to scale clockspeeds wildly, whereas it has yet to be shown exactly how much headroom the G5 has to offer. Prescott will have larger caches, improved Hyperthreading, and (eventually) a faster FSB (with memory to match). It also is manufactured with strained silicon. What does the G5 have down the line?

I'm not saying that it has no headroom, but Apple/IBM have yet to demonstrate that it does. Intel (and AMD to some extent) make their roadmaps relatively well known, and they show obvious growth and progress. Apple, however, had stagnated up until recently. What's to say that they won't do the same again? Will the G5 scale a few MHz, then sit a lag behind the rest of the world, just like the G4?

There's no doubt that the G5 is an impressive effort from Apple, but it still pales in comparison to what Intel (and perhaps AMD) will have to offer. A 1GHz bus is great, but only if you've got memory to use it. A new architecture is nice, but how long will it last? Netburst has a lot more headroom than what it's showing right now.



P.S. I'm not sure what kind of 3D animation work you do with 3D Studio Max, but I found that the 4.2.6 upgrade that optimized for Intel's SSE2 instructions really didn't speed anything up except for a few special cases (intensive raytracing). If you're doing something that utilizes 3ds Max's raytracer that much, you should consider upgrading to a real raytracer, like finalRender or VRay. They offer much better speed boosts than Intel's SSE2 instructions did.

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: jbond04
EdipisReks, I'm not sure how sound your logic is here...you say that as compilers and software become optimized and the G5 ramps up in speed, it will be able to compete with high-end P4's...but your assumption kind of rests on something silly like "the P4 isn't going to get any faster". When Intel released the Pentium 4, they had a clear roadmap of where they were going with it. Everyone (at least, everyone who stayed informed), knew about the upcoming Northwood core revision, and nice people like Wingznut were there to let us know that it would offer a significant performance boost.

Sure, the P4 wasn't a stellar performer when it debuted. BUT, it had tons of performance potential and a clear way to reach it. Yeah, the 2GHz G5 is a big leap in the Macintosh world...but it's not like the PC world doesn't get those leaps, either. Prescott will be able to scale clockspeeds wildly, whereas it has yet to be shown exactly how much headroom the G5 has to offer. Prescott will have larger caches, improved Hyperthreading, and (eventually) a faster FSB (with memory to match). What does the G5 have down the line?

I'm not saying that it has no headroom, but Apple/IBM have yet to demonstrate that it does. Intel (and AMD to some extent) make their roadmaps relatively well known, and it shows obvious growth and progress. Apple, however, had stagnated up until recently. What's to say that it won't do the same again? Will the G5 scale a few MHz, then sit a lag behind the rest of the world, just like the G4?

There's no doubt that the G5 is an impressive effort from Apple, but it still pales in comparison to what Intel (and perhaps AMD) will have to offer. A 1GHz bus is great, but only if you've got memory to use it. A new architecture is nice, but how long will it last? Netburst has a lot more headroom than what it's showing right now.



P.S. I'm not sure what kind of 3D animation work you do with 3D Studio Max, but I found that the 4.2.6 upgrade that optimized for Intel's SSE2 instructions really didn't speed anything up except for a few special cases (intensive raytracing). If you're doing something that utilizes 3ds Max's raytracer that much, you should consider upgrading to a real raytracer, like finalRender or VRay. They offer much better speed boosts than Intel's SSE2 instructions did.

raytracing was why i went to VRay, as i used ray tracing a lot but only had 3d studio available when i started rendering. my point about compilers was simply that some processors in the past have only come into maturity once software was optimized for them. once this happens with the G5 we will be able to get a real idea about its performance. of course PC's will get faster, but so will the G5. IBM is set to release a 9 angstrom version next year and they have been comitted to scaling this processor from the beginning. i forsee 3 gHz G5's within the year. i doubt that the G5 will scale as fast as the PIV, but IBM/Apple doesn't have a competitor to compete with in this regard. don't confuse IBM with Motorola. IBM has the capability to actually produce what they promise.

 

[Eug]

Some points about IBM:

1) They stated it would be introduced at 1.8 GHz, but it came out at 2 GHz right off the bat.
2) They stated it would come out in Q3, and indeed, shipping of complete Apple systems are scheduled for August supposedly. (People are getting ship dates of before Sept. 2.)
3) They are fabbing for AMD.
4) They will be going head to head with x86 in the blade server market with this chip. These chips are to be the cornerstore of part of IBM's lower-end Linux blade server market, along with Opterons and Xeons, etc. in existing lines. In fact, they said those blades will be at 1.8 - 2.5 GHz. It would be in IBM's best interest to keep those PPC 970 chips flowing - for themselves, not just for Apple.
5) They have publicly stated that the PPC 970 will hit 3 GHz within 12 months.
6) They have said that the PPC 970 will go 0.09 um fairly quickly (whatever that means).

 

[jbond04]

Originally posted by: Eug
Some points about IBM:

1) They stated it would be introduced at 1.8 GHz, but it came out at 2 GHz right off the bat.
2) They stated it would come out in Q3, and indeed, shipping of complete Apple systems are scheduled for August supposedly. (People are getting ship dates of before Sept. 2.)
3) They are fabbing for AMD.
4) They will be going head to head with x86 in the blade server market with this chip. These chips are to be the cornerstore of part of IBM's lower-end Linux blade server market, along with Opterons and Xeons, etc. in existing lines. In fact, they said those blades will be at 1.8 - 2.5 GHz. It would be in IBM's best interest to keep those PPC 970 chips flowing - for themselves, not just for Apple.
5) They have publicly stated that the PPC 970 will hit 3 GHz within 12 months.
6) They have said that the PPC 970 will go 0.09 um fairly quickly (whatever that means).

I never said that IBM didn't have the manufacturing expertise to make the G5 scale well (IBM has one of the best teams out there, I think). But you're still listing things that Intel will have several months before Apple/IBM. Prescott appears ready to roll, which is .09um, and in 12 months, it will almost be Tejas time (H2 2004). My point isn't that the G5 is bad, because it's not, but it's not anything revolutionary, and it's not even the best. What I am saying is that for now, Intel still has the performance advantage, and will for the forseeable future. It's good to see the IBM is committed to the future of the G5, though.