• 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.

New dual GHz Macs with Geforce 4 announced today.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


<< Whine whine whine

Apple makes a computer that is fantastically excellent for what it does: photoshop and word process. If you want a silent computer, you can get their (now defunct) cube. If you want something to give to your daughter or to impress the relatives, get an imac. When I'm in the local computer lab, the choice is between gateways and apples and I choose apples because their keyboards/mice have a nice feel, their monitors are really wonderful, and I'm not missing anything by not having stellar 3d performance while i'm typing or editing a paper.

Don't forget that the g4 is on an eight stage pipeline, by the way.

Apple is just trying to make their boxes reasonable for games and gamers, and while you and I don't need to pay their inane prices for sub-par 3d performance, that doesn't mean the computers suck at everything. Also, and here I'm no paragon of wisdom, it would seem q3 was built with x86 and windows in mind, so apple is playing catch-up on more fields than one.

Here's to a migration to the clawhammer for apple! >>


Nobody is knocking Apple for what they produce, but they need to try to stop comparing themselves to the big boys (namely Intel). It's a losing battle and utterly ridiculous.
 


<< Nobody is knocking Apple for what they produce, but they need to try to stop comparing themselves to the big boys (namely Intel). It's a losing battle and utterly ridiculous >>


This is really true. I like the new iMac and I've always liked Apple's products (not their prices, however). It just strikes me as really snide and arrogant how Apple has to keep making patently false statements concerning its competitors.

It's ironic that they sell such elegant products with the finesse of trailer-trash
 
"This is really true. I like the new iMac and I've always liked Apple's products (not their prices, however). It just strikes me as really snide and arrogant how Apple has to keep making patently false statements concerning its competitors."

Goodness; I don't know of another company that could be accused of such evil 🙂 Thankfully for apple if unfortunately for its consumers, it probably isn't selling to the world's most savvy tech types. Point taken, though.
 
"Everyone knows the whole PR routine, but as far as cross platform comparisons, AMD and Intel don't do it."

That's because there is no reason for them to do that, it won't gain them any market share. When you are the underdog you always compare yourself to the market leader, for so many obvious reasons, it's not even worth discussing. Does ATI compare their cards to NVidia or Kyro? Do sound card manufacturers compare themselves to Creative or onboard Crystal implementations? Who do you expect Apple to compare their systems to? Crusoe or Sun?

"Apple is the only that feels that they have something to prove with grossly misleading statements."

Maybe you'd like to share which statement exactly that you are referring to, because I didn't see any overtly exaggerated performance claims. Certainly nothing that was worse than what other companies have claimed.

Certainly are some bitter PC users here. I don't see why any of you would care in the slightest what Apples says. You don't like their products, there's nothing wrong with that, but trashing them just out of spite is pointless and counterproductive. If your systemn really is that much better you shouldn't have to trash the other guy to try and prove it.
 


<< Maybe you'd like to share which statement exactly that you are referring to, because I didn't see any overtly exaggerated performance claims. Certainly nothing that was worse than what other companies have claimed. >>


How about comparing a modern dual processor platform against a modern single processor platform? I think that has already been stated a few times up above.

Why not compare a dual PIII Tualatin system against the dual G4's? Or maybe Dual Xeons vs Dual G4's? But dual vs single is pushing credibility IMHO...
 
"How about comparing a modern dual processor platform against a modern single processor platform?"

There is nothing grossly misleading about comparing a dual system to a single CPU system if it is clearly stated and they are intended for the same market. Both of which are true. No one is marketing a dual Xeon system for home users/desktop users. It's not Apple's fault that no one on the PC side is producing desktop targetted SMP configurations. They have the advantage their, and they want to let other know about it. Nothing wrong or dishonest with that.
 
"...There is nothing grossly misleading about comparing a dual system to a single CPU system if it is clearly stated and they are intended for the same market. Both of which are true..."

Huh?

Okay, now where is *that* clearly stated by Apple?
 


<< intended for the same market >>




what ! surely your having a laugh ,same market my @rse - apple macs are aimed at people who either use photoshop or like the shape, they have no significant use apart from that.
 
I would love to see a dual p3 tully comparison against a g4 dual 1 gig.

They could do a similar test by using OSX in the apple and BSD on the PC, then run tests using similar programs in the real world.

Microsoft Office would be a good start.
Jbuilder compile times
Adobe After Effects Composite Test
Seti or another distributed computing solution....


I think it'd be a fair test.
 
"the dual 1-GHz Power Mac G4 runs professional applications like Adobe Photoshop up to 72 percent faster and encodes DVD Video over 300 percent faster than a 2-GHz Pentium 4-based PC*."

Where is there room for confusion there? How bad do your reading skills have to be to not understand that is a comparison between a dual system and a single system? To be honest I don't think Apple should have to tell you that because it doesn't matter how they are getting that performance. The 3dfx Voodoo 5500 used two graphics processors vs everyone else's 1. Was that an unfair comparison? Did everyone bitch and moan that 3dfx was cheating or misleading the public? They are products competing for the same market. How they actually get there is irrelevent. The average user doesn't care if their computer is powered by hamsters with ray guns all that matters is how it performs.
 
? wtf NFS4 do you feel threatened or something??

why all the sudden go on an offensive?

WHO CARES about the PR. we know it's PR... sheesh..

WHO CARES if they try to compare themselves to Intel (I don't see them doing so here except if you call the benchmark the comparison).

man I wish I could design a case for the PC like the PowerMac.. that would be sweet...
 
Apple is good for other stuff.. just not games.. i mean if I really wanna play games, i go get a game machine not an apple...
 


<< "the dual 1-GHz Power Mac G4 runs professional applications like Adobe Photoshop up to 72 percent faster and encodes DVD Video over 300 percent faster than a 2-GHz Pentium 4-based PC*."

Where is there room for confusion there? How bad do your reading skills have to be to not understand that is a comparison between a dual system and a single system? To be honest I don't think Apple should have to tell you that because it doesn't matter how they are getting that performance. The 3dfx Voodoo 5500 used two graphics processors vs everyone else's 1. Was that an unfair comparison? Did everyone bitch and moan that 3dfx was cheating or misleading the public? They are products competing for the same market. How they actually get there is irrelevent. The average user doesn't care if their computer is powered by hamsters with ray guns all that matters is how it performs. >>


If Apple is gonna make comparisons, at least do it in a logical manner. Dual G4 vs Dual PIII/Xeon or Single G4 vs Single PIII/P4. That's all I'm saying. If there IS THE OPTION to test a system in a given configuration, DO SO. AND HERE IS THE ULTIMATE FLAW IN THEIR COMPARISON IF YOU SAY THAT THEY ARE MAKING A "SIMPLE" SINGLE CPU VS DUAL CPU TEST. Comparing their dual system to Intel's single Pentium 2.0GHz. A more logical statement would be that their Dual G4 system is xxx% faster than their single G4 system. Throwing the Pentium 4 in their just clouds the whole matter.

The average Mac consumer doesn't give two poops about the Pentium 4. What they DO want to know is how much faster is a dual gonna be than my 600MHz G4, or a single 866MHz G4 and so on. The whole dual G4 vs Penitum 4 thing is nothing but a pissing match.

I don't even see how a Pentium 4 2.0GHz even can compare to dual G4's in the first place. They don't aim at the same market and aren't included in systems that cost around the same amount of money.

All I'm saying is that to me the comparison doesn't make one bit of sense.
 


<<
If Apple is gonna make comparisons, at least do it in a logical manner. Dual G4 vs Dual PIII/Xeon or Single G4 vs Single PIII/P4. That's all I'm saying. If there IS THE OPTION to test a system in a given configuration, DO SO. AND HERE IS THE ULTIMATE FLAW IN THEIR COMPARISON IF YOU SAY THAT THEY ARE MAKING A "SIMPLE" SINGLE CPU VS DUAL CPU TEST. Comparing their dual system to Intel's single Pentium 2.0GHz. A more logical statement would be that their Dual G4 system is xxx% faster than their single G4 system. Throwing the Pentium 4 in their just clouds the whole matter.
 >>



I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one, I see no problem with their using a dually G4 to compare against a single P4.
Sure it's a dual processor system versus a uniprocessor PC which seems to give Apple the edge, but when you look at the intended markets it's totally fair I'd say.
The dual G4 is being marketed towards the home/desktop consumer, just as the uniprocessor P4 is.
A dually Xeon, or a dual processor PIII Tualatin however are being marketed towards the low end server environment... definitely not for the average home consumer.
So when one considers the intended market it's quite acceptable IMHO.
 


<<

<<
If Apple is gonna make comparisons, at least do it in a logical manner. Dual G4 vs Dual PIII/Xeon or Single G4 vs Single PIII/P4. That's all I'm saying. If there IS THE OPTION to test a system in a given configuration, DO SO. AND HERE IS THE ULTIMATE FLAW IN THEIR COMPARISON IF YOU SAY THAT THEY ARE MAKING A "SIMPLE" SINGLE CPU VS DUAL CPU TEST. Comparing their dual system to Intel's single Pentium 2.0GHz. A more logical statement would be that their Dual G4 system is xxx% faster than their single G4 system. Throwing the Pentium 4 in their just clouds the whole matter.


<<

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one, I see no problem with their using a dually G4 to compare against a single P4.
Sure it's a dual processor system versus a uniprocessor PC which seems to give Apple the edge, but when you look at the intended markets it's totally fair I'd say.
The dual G4 is being marketed towards the home/desktop consumer, just as the uniprocessor P4 is.
A dually Xeon, or a dual processor PIII Tualatin however are being marketed towards the low end server environment... definitely not for the average home consumer.
So when one considers the intended market it's quite acceptable IMHO. >>


Well, we'll just agree to disagree 😉 Given the price difference between the two, it doesn't make much sense to me, but whatever.
 


<< I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one, I see no problem with their using a dually G4 to compare against a single P4.
Sure it's a dual processor system versus a uniprocessor PC which seems to give Apple the edge, but when you look at the intended markets it's totally fair I'd say.
The dual G4 is being marketed towards the home/desktop consumer, just as the uniprocessor P4 is.
A dually Xeon, or a dual processor PIII Tualatin however are being marketed towards the low end server environment... definitely not for the average home consumer.
So when one considers the intended market it's quite acceptable IMHO. >>



I'll partially agree with you. The dual Xeons are not marketed for home desktop users. However I also disagree - they really aren't marketed much as servers. Until the 4 processor Intel Xeon is released, the 4-8 processor P3 Xeon is the one marketed as a server. The dual Xeons are marketed as business workstations. Who needs to spend $3000 and run programs like photoshop fast? Businesses needing workstations. In my opinion the newest dual G4 and the dual Xeons are both intended as workstations - not home computers (that would be the single P4 or the slightly slower G4s) and not servers.

All home computers are under $2000 - recently home computers are more in the $1000 range. How many $3000 commercials do you see? Almost none. How many $899 commercials do you see? Probably more than I can count. As it is, a $2999 computer is not a home computer. Give it a few months for the price to decline, and then I'll agree that it is intended as a home computer.
 


<< NFS4 cool the mac hate my friend.... >>


I didn't say that I hated Macs...just that I thought that this comparison was invalid. Big difference.


<< Who needs to spend $3000 and run programs like photoshop fast? Businesses needing workstations. In my opinion the newest dual G4 and the dual Xeons are both intended as workstations - not home computers (that would be the single P4 or the slightly slower G4s) and not servers.

All home computers are under $2000 - recently home computers are more in the $1000 range. How many $3000 commercials do you see? Almost none. How many $899 commercials do you see? Probably more than I can count. As it is, a $2999 computer is not a home computer. Give it a few months for the price to decline, and then I'll agree that it is intended as a home computer. >>


That's what I'm saying. They don't even compete in the same space. You can easily get a P4 2.0GHz system for under $1500...probably way less. I don't know many home users that spend $3000 on a computer.
 


<< You can easily get a P4 2.0GHz system for under $1500...probably way less. >>



Well if you include a DVD writer and 512 MB of memory, I don't think you will find a 2.0 GHz P4 for under $1750. But your point is still correct.
 


<<

<< You can easily get a P4 2.0GHz system for under $1500...probably way less. >>



Well if you include a DVD writer and 512 MB of memory, I don't think you will find a 2.0 GHz P4 for under $1750. But your point is still correct. >>


Yeah I know what you mean, even so...it is not even close to being $3000...

It's like saying that a Corvette Z06 ($50,000) is faster than a Subaru Impreza WRX ($26,000). Well no &%@* Sherlock 🙂
 
I'd say sweet, but it only has a Geforce 4 MX. I would've expected the top of the line model to have the top of the line Geforce 4. They had the top of the line Geforce 3 when it game out. And sheesh, $2999 is a lot even for a dual system. Even a dual Xeon Prestonia would cost less with a Geforce 4 4600.
 
"Yeah I know what you mean, even so...it is not even close to being $3000...

It's like saying that a Corvette Z06 ($50,000) is faster than a Subaru Impreza WRX ($26,000). Well no &%@* Sherlock"

Or it's like saying that a p4 2.0 ghz ($352) is faster than an athlon xp 1900 ($205). Oh, wait 🙂

Sorry; couldn't resist.
 
I just priced a P4 2.0GHz @ Dell w/17" monitor

80GB Hard Drive
512MB PC800 RDRAM
GF2 MX 64MB
CD-RW drive
Windows XP

yadda yadda

$1,728

Considering that for home use you don't need RDRAM or even that large a hard drive, skimping down to 40GB and 512MB PC133 would get you towards $1500. Build it yourself and you're looking at under $1500.

 
I would like apple start to show some proper benchmarks (amd included), not just some radial blur nonsense. At least amd states their PR rating and backs it up, apple just constantly uses photoshop its quite sad really that some people actually believe it.



<< It's like saying that a Corvette Z06 ($50,000) is faster than a Subaru Impreza WRX ($26,000). Well no &%@* Sherlock >>



Are we talking jap spec wrx ? preferably on 98 ron, then 0-30 or 0-60 that corvette is going to be eating some dust 🙂
 


<<

<<

<< Article >>



Why does Apple always compare a dual G4 with a single P4? I can at least accept the photoshop only benchmark - however I cannot accept them comparing a dual processor computer to a single processor computer. This is especially true when a dual Intel Xeon is cheaper than a dual G4. >>


They are just trying to mislead their core audience in order to get them to buy their overpriced sheeeeeeeeeeeeeet.

I mean, a 2 GHz Pentium 4 system would be ridiculously cheaper than what Apple is shoveling. >>



A 2GHz P4 is better at most things then a PowerMac but can you run OS X, OmniWeb, Final Cut Pro, iDVD, iTunes, iPhoto or iMovie on a 2GHz P4, nope. I know there are comparable apps to those for the Windows side but the reason I hang on to my dual 450 PowerMac is the above apps and a few more are just better then there Windows counterparts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top