ok, so 77723523523 thinks Apple is a viable gaming platform. He thinks that almost every single game available for PC is also available for the Mac. This is not true, as many games ARE NOT even bothered to be ported due to the poor performance of Mac's in video games. Only the highest selling games make it to the Macs. Reason being, people who play games on computers almost exclusively use PC's. Mac's aren't very good at gaming and if your trying to argue this with me you are a complete idiot. Mac's could have the entire PC library ported but it still wouldn't mean crap because they can't put out high framerates even with geforce and radeon video cards. Show me benchmarks of your latest and greatest Mac in 3d games, i bet you that even a lowly 1ghz thunderbird with a gf3 will blow it out of the water.
yea 200 fps at 640X480, considering that PC's are scoring in upwards of 300 FPS it's nothing to get excited about. Quake 3 is an old benchmark and nobody seems to merit its worth much anymore, since we can get insanely high FPS. Try running more RECENT benchmarks and games. games that can actually stress a system, then you'll see what i'm talking about. That link showed benchmarks for Text scrolling? cinebench? cmon gimme some real games besides Q3. And what's the price on that GF4 TI, $399 are YOU FSCKING KIDDING ME!!!!! You'll never win the Mac gaming argument so stop now.
im not trying to "win" any argument. I'm showing that they aren't completely useless for gaming as you try and make them out to be.
Overpriced? Yes. But then I think the ti4600 is as well.
Are they as good as wintel boxes are at gaming? No.
Can they still play games adequately? Yes.
Overpriced? Yes. But then I think the ti4600 is as well.
Are they as good as wintel boxes are at gaming? No.
Can they still play games adequately? Yes.
Well it looks like ALL the idiots have come out to crap on what was once a good thread.
In this article they are comparing a last generation top of the line mac with a current generation middle of the road mac. Obviously not a fair comparison. If you read the article you would see where the author said:
"The new PowerMacs have 1 MB of L3 Cache, while the SDRAM ones have 2 MB of L3 and that's the real reason which results to the slowdown."
Now, if you think for a minute you'd realize the reason that the new ones have less L3 cache is because they're a middle of the road model. The top of the line ones have the larger cache and that's what you'd have to comare to.
If you had the brains to be able to read the words that I've written you'd see that I'm considering the Mac as a viable platform for audio editing. You'd also see the phrase "Devil's advocate." I'm not a Mac fanboy. I love my PC. I'm only giving them a fair chance unlike most ravenous PC freaks.
Well, it's obvious that you know nothing about working with audio whatsoever. What makes you think that the system listed in my profile is anything more than my gaming system. For recording I use an Echo Mia and a Delta 66. Smartass. Besides, you'll see that I was downsampling from 44,100 to 22,050 which any card could handle. As I said, if you'd bothered to read it, was that I didn't want the test to take to long. Read before you open your big, stupid, mouth. Even if recorded with the best equipment in the world, it's often necessary to resample just to work with two pieces of audio side by side. Not all sources are original you know.
I don't know why I'm bothing to read your FUD. I've already admitted that the Mac is not ideal for gaming but it is viable if you have to. It's also not what it's designed for and not what it's marketed for. I've said that it's a productivity platform and that's what I'm considering it for. I'm looking at it's ability to work with audio better than the PC and that's something that it may well be able to do. You'll see from the architectural overviews provided that it is well equipped to do that with Altivec and all of it's extra registers. You'll see a 1ghz G4 scoring more than twice what a 2.53P4 does in RC-5 for this reason. It's not a good measure of its overall performance but it definitely shows what it's capable of doing in scenarios like processing the same loop again and again on an audio file which is a weakness of the PC.
In this article they are comparing a last generation top of the line mac with a current generation middle of the road mac. Obviously not a fair comparison. If you read the article you would see where the author said:
"The new PowerMacs have 1 MB of L3 Cache, while the SDRAM ones have 2 MB of L3 and that's the real reason which results to the slowdown."
Now, if you think for a minute you'd realize the reason that the new ones have less L3 cache is because they're a middle of the road model. The top of the line ones have the larger cache and that's what you'd have to comare to.
If you had the brains to be able to read the words that I've written you'd see that I'm considering the Mac as a viable platform for audio editing. You'd also see the phrase "Devil's advocate." I'm not a Mac fanboy. I love my PC. I'm only giving them a fair chance unlike most ravenous PC freaks.
Well, it's obvious that you know nothing about working with audio whatsoever. What makes you think that the system listed in my profile is anything more than my gaming system. For recording I use an Echo Mia and a Delta 66. Smartass. Besides, you'll see that I was downsampling from 44,100 to 22,050 which any card could handle. As I said, if you'd bothered to read it, was that I didn't want the test to take to long. Read before you open your big, stupid, mouth. Even if recorded with the best equipment in the world, it's often necessary to resample just to work with two pieces of audio side by side. Not all sources are original you know.
I don't know why I'm bothing to read your FUD. I've already admitted that the Mac is not ideal for gaming but it is viable if you have to. It's also not what it's designed for and not what it's marketed for. I've said that it's a productivity platform and that's what I'm considering it for. I'm looking at it's ability to work with audio better than the PC and that's something that it may well be able to do. You'll see from the architectural overviews provided that it is well equipped to do that with Altivec and all of it's extra registers. You'll see a 1ghz G4 scoring more than twice what a 2.53P4 does in RC-5 for this reason. It's not a good measure of its overall performance but it definitely shows what it's capable of doing in scenarios like processing the same loop again and again on an audio file which is a weakness of the PC.
that's great and all that you want us to compare benchmarks with apple's latest and greatest. But guess what, those dual 1.25 GHZ's cost $5000, which is hardly in anyone's price range. So you can at least be reasonable, i mean i could ask you to compare to freakin quad xeons systems that would annihilate any mac on existence but i dont.
I don't actually expect you to read the architectural overviews provided and learn something. I fully expect you to keep your mind closed and stick with your uneducated opinion. To make it easier for you, I'll just paste something from another thread in here. As you can see, a dual 2.53 doesn't even get half of what a dual 1.25 does in an app which takes advantage of the G4's strengh. There are often no gains going from 2 to 4 processors even when the app supports SMP. Again, 4 over 2 processors frequently doens't provide any benefit except in rare programs and servers. In apps like this and, PERHAPS, audio editing the P4 doesn't stand a chance. Quad Xeon's may be faster. Maybe, maybe not. Frankly, I doubt it. Even if they are, how does that make this any less viable of a platform for productivity? Are we allowed only one choice?
In Distributed.net's RC5:
Dual G4 1.25ghz: 21.7MK/sec
Dual Tbred XP2200+: 12.2MK/sec
Dual P4 2.53ghz: 10.1MK/sec
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: dexvx
I bet if RC5 was somehow magically SSE2 enhanced, it could put the G4 to shame.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(not written by me)
Actually, no, we took a look at it, and it can't be done. There are some improvements going in to the P4 client code(I don't know if it uses SSE1/2 or not) which have boosted speed signifigantly. But then again, those numbers I gave you are based off of projections using the new client. The P4 will never beat the G4 for 1 simple reason, registers. The G4 uses a technique called "bitslicing" to handle RC5, while all x86 chips currently use the slower rotate technique. I don't remember the exact numbers, but the G4 has the extra 128bit General Purpose registers where it counts(32 I believe). Even using the SSE2 registers, the P4 still lacks the ability to bitslice RC5. Unless the Hammer can bitslice, the G4 will probably be the #1 chip for a long time to come
In Distributed.net's RC5:
Dual G4 1.25ghz: 21.7MK/sec
Dual Tbred XP2200+: 12.2MK/sec
Dual P4 2.53ghz: 10.1MK/sec
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: dexvx
I bet if RC5 was somehow magically SSE2 enhanced, it could put the G4 to shame.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(not written by me)
Actually, no, we took a look at it, and it can't be done. There are some improvements going in to the P4 client code(I don't know if it uses SSE1/2 or not) which have boosted speed signifigantly. But then again, those numbers I gave you are based off of projections using the new client. The P4 will never beat the G4 for 1 simple reason, registers. The G4 uses a technique called "bitslicing" to handle RC5, while all x86 chips currently use the slower rotate technique. I don't remember the exact numbers, but the G4 has the extra 128bit General Purpose registers where it counts(32 I believe). Even using the SSE2 registers, the P4 still lacks the ability to bitslice RC5. Unless the Hammer can bitslice, the G4 will probably be the #1 chip for a long time to come
mac's will always have the lead in the rare few benchmarks out there due to their different approach, but in the vast majority of video/audio editing programs like photoshop, aftereffects, etc. PC's perform better. Simple as that, sure Mac's can oust Pc's in certain benchmarks but when you take a look at the whole picture the PC is winning way more benchmarks and is performing on the whole much better. The PC is an all-around much better performer, Mac's are good at very specialized processes, and adequate at others.
Clap for you! Your little brain is starting to get it! Macs are better at certain types of things. PRODUCTIVITY! Workstation stuff. Working with audio, video. That's what they're built for and that's what I've been saying.
Hey, I love macs and PCs.. 
I'm actually thinking of picking up a PowerBook Ti 800. I have a buddy that works at Apple, and he can get me the $3200 model for $2400, which is 25% off
I want to run 10.2, so I think have to do it.
I'm actually thinking of picking up a PowerBook Ti 800. I have a buddy that works at Apple, and he can get me the $3200 model for $2400, which is 25% off I want to run 10.2, so I think have to do it.
That sounds cool. What kind of graphics does that thing have? Will it be able to handle quartz extreme?
RC-5 has got to be the worst thing to use to indicate performance. Unless your sole definition of performance is based on how fast you can crunch RC-5 (which is in itself suppose to take advantage of CPU idle time), it's not at all a good indication of general performance. RC-5 is......eccentric to say the least. The code contains more bit shifts and rotates than I think anyone will ever see in any other code. This is practically the only cases in which a certain application plays on the major weakness of the P4 design and one of the major strengths of the G4 design. Funny, Apple is advertising their computers to be better in media editing (such as audio and video) which happens to be very SSE/SSE2 friendly and plays significantly on the major strengths of the P4.
And oh, btw, the G4 has 32 128-bit SIMD registers (for AltiVec). Impressive? Yes. Unique? No. All SSE/SSE2 registers are 128-bit. The general purpose registers are still 32-bit, hence why it's still a 32-bit processor.
And oh, btw, the G4 has 32 128-bit SIMD registers (for AltiVec). Impressive? Yes. Unique? No. All SSE/SSE2 registers are 128-bit. The general purpose registers are still 32-bit, hence why it's still a 32-bit processor.
Well, thanks for supporting me. I'm sure you didn't mean to but you did. You're right SSE2 registers are 128 bit but there aren't as many of them and SSE2 is not as advanced as altivec (see architectural overview.) RC-5 is not your day to day application but it does show off how impressive altivec is. Altivec is what the G4 uses to do its audio and video editing just like the P4 uses SSE2. This is what makes the G4 better at media editing. Read the two comparisons of the P4 to G4 architecture linked earlier. It explains it in ridiculous detail.
Mac's being better than PC's at Productivity is certainly subjective and bears no merit in this discussion. Workstation stuff? Could u be a little more elaborate. Working with audio/video? Last time i checked the P4 left the DUAL G4's trailing in its dust in Photoshop/aftereffects/lightwave and many other audio/video apps. You say that G4's are better at working with audio, and since i don't have any benchmarks in front of me I'll take your word for it, but that does not mean that the P4's are slouch at audio editing. In the end, you can't really justify the price spent on a Mac when the PC simply performs better at most things the Mac is specialized to do. Now i say "most" because i know that there are certain areas where the Mac might be faster, but in terms of video/audio apps PC's are once again all-around faster machines.
Strengths of the P4 over say a P4 without SSE/SSE2 or an Athlon which lacks SSE2.
Strengths over a G4? Well, show me the direct comparisons. Like I keep saying, I want to see mpeg, you happened to bring it up this time.
Both are viable platforms for 99% of things. Even yes, shocking as it seems, gaming. Aside from people who run a distributed computing client in the background (I do, do you? Why not?) the vast majority of the time the CPU is sitting idle. Welp, both are evenly matched then. I agree RC5 is a poor comparison other than to show when something exploits the strengths of one platform more than another it will look better. Who doesn't already know this? Certainly nobody who's ever thought about benchmarking for more than a couple seconds.
I've had my fun jeering at Macs over the years, still do on occasion. But let's face it, the similarities are as great as the differences and really with the OS trend of OS-X showing improvement while XP is showing mostly how annoying MS can be, there's little to be said on that issue. Linux runs on both, something that makes me quite happy, especially if I ever get off my butt and try Linux again and then someday find myself using a Mac. PCs have been heavily into 3D gaming for what, six years now? Macs have been dabbling with it a shorter time and already have an OS accelerated by the video card. Hello? Might not be as quick in Quake 3, but as I've never played Quake 3 I tend to think desktop application acceleration is a damn nice thing, especially from a company that doesn't live or die by Q3 benchmarks.
Where are all the VIA haters? I happen to quite enjoy my VIA chipset in my PC, but where are they? Those zealots only show up when talking about other PCs? When was the last time you heard any 4in1 bitching about a Mac? Again, I say I'm not one of them, but well, where are they? Maybe because they have nothing to bitch about with a Mac?
Where are the AMD systems are too noisy zealots? They only show up in iNTEL vs AMD threads? I pointed out the huge heatsink the new G4 dual is using, where are the iNTEL fanboys who live by the credo "quiet is better"?
Where are the Microsoft sucks zealots? I imagine a few of them have crept in and held their nose as they point out how their PC is better, ignoring the OS comparison while they still run XP rather than Linux. Something I should do myself so I guess you could throw me on the outside fringe of this crowd.
Think it was the other thread about Macs where people were making up grand conspiracies about Apple using a P4 with SDram and probably crippling it in a hundred different ways to make it underperform. Thing is they compared it to a Dell 8200 with RDRam. When you have to go to conspiracies first it shows two things:
A) People aren't too confident in their rantings
B) Anand needs to do a thorough comparison
--Mc
The comparisons that you're asking for are right here. Re-read the thread and click on all the links. You're right, you don't run into VIA problems on the Mac. People who say they don't exist piss me off because they do for a great many people including myself (KT266.) The KT266a was fine but the 266 sucked for me. Stability, USB issues, patches every week needed, it was crap. It doesn't happen to all PCs, I know, but it does happen with a lot. Owned a via 133 or 266 system with a creative card and a GeForce card only a relatively short while ago would give you the nvidia/via infinite loop problem AND the creative/via problem as well as the USB/via problem. The closed architecture of the Mac really does prevent crap like that and it's great. Also, you're right, noise is a great with a mac, some of them don't even have fans. not a single fan in some of them. Not one, that's silent.
Now I'm in the strange position of playing devil's advocate to the position I've previously been taking.
The VIA problems seem to boil down to problems with the Creative Labs Live! and perhaps Audigy cards. Filter out the posts that aren't about those products and you're not left with much concrete, at least I haven't been. And as I've never had any problems with my KT133A I've never really gotten too excited about the issue other than to point fingers back the other direction since my computer with it's Turtle Beach Santa Cruz works beautifully.
There's no doubt the closed architecture clears up a lot of things though. Forget 4in1's. I set up a SIS 735 system and had to do device drivers off the CD included with the motherboard. No chipset (other than perhaps intel where Micrsoft builds it in where it's a direct comparison to the Mac) is as seemless as the Mac.
Mac OS-X is up to version 10.2 now isn't it? So there goes the patch arguement. Everyone has patches. One can say people don't need to run 10.2, but people can say you don't need to upgrade Windows as well or even swtich from PIO mode to UDMA in XP. (what a sick, cruel joke that is)
I brought up the noise issue because it's a good comparison. But now you went and blew it with 'silent'. Still hear the HD. Still hear the optical drives. Nit picky? Yes. But that's what annoys people with Apple's marketing at lot of the time, using absolutes rather than real world comparisons.
--Mc
It's the current model, with the Radeon 7500M 32MB, so it'll handle QE just fine. QE requires a 32MB AGP vid card at least, but the current Ti Powerbooks are all good to go
Anyone play Warcraft 3 on one of these? I wonder how that is....
RC-5 uses very little AltiVec as far as I know. It's a lot of integer calculations involving rotates and shifts. The G4 simply handle these better due to the fact that they are more latency intensive than throughput intensive. As for AltiVec being superior, that's arguable. More registers is good and all but there is more to SIMD than just how many registers there are. The AltiVec implementation has its advantages such as dedicated execution units, however, it lacks certain things, such as the ability to handle 64-bit double-precision FP data types. This makes it practically useless for high-end CAD design and most video editing programs because they all rely on 64-bit FP data types. Luckily, the G4 has a strong enough FPU that can handle 64-bit double-precision FP data types which makes its performance in most video editing programs decent and not abismal. However, it still can't stack up to SSE2, which is very friendly towards such apps.
As far as being media-friendly, SSE2 is much more useful for high-precision work. Don't get sucked into Apple's PR machine. Just because they say it's better in media programs doesn't mean it is. As far as RC-5, as I said earlier, all it shows is what we already know. A low-latency method to handle bit shifts and rotates is better than a high-latency method. Doesn't really apply to most of the programs out there. Impressive? Yes. Useful? Unless you do RC-5 all day, not really.
Downsampling is a function of the software not the audio card itself. You can downsample data without a sound card actually!
I happen to work with data acquisition in the 5 MHz range with 32 bit (and higher) quantization in the scientific trade which involves behavior manipulandae of cetaceans. I know a thing or two about digital sampling.
You are sir are a troll. I will waste no more time with your or this thread. It's obvious who the real "know-it-all-really-knows-nothing-contributes-what-they-read-in-ads" is here.
Cheers!
boy, those dual 1 gHz are so fast
shame that the "new" DDR dual 1 gHz is slower than the old SDR dual 1gHz (check the hardocp mainpage for the link), so the speed difference shown there would be even larger with the new ones. also too bad that the dual 1.25 gHz isn't due for over six weeks. really nice product release
that is no excuse. funny how the "middle of the road" geforce4 ti4400 beat the snot out of the old top of the line geforce3 ti500. hell, the "low end" ti4200 also blows the geforce3 ti500 out of the water. most companies don't play the same games that apple does. if you "improve" a model, it should be faster than the "old" version that is running at the same clockspeeds.
What does that have to do with what you quoted me as saying? WHAT? The original poster I was responding to suggested that if I used a better sound card I wouldn't need to downsample since I could playback 24bit on a higher card. You can downsample on any card BUT you can't open a real 24bit file on an audigy therefore you can't downsample it. So, no you can't downsample without a soundcard. I take you calling me a troll to heart since you're the one who came in to a fine thread and started crapping. None of what you just said has anything to do with what you quoted from me. Are you just talking to talk?
That's one way to look at it. There's no law that says the middle of the road of generation 5 has to be faster than the top of the line generation 4. That's just what you want. They are comparing top of the line to middle of the road and it's not fair. One sold for $5K and the other for $3K. Just because they have the same processor in them as the last generation, they made other compromises for the sake of price which dragged down performance such as the cache. The old dual 1ghz is faster than the new one because it was designed to be and there's nothing wrong with that.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter