Slashdot Mirror
Dual 1Ghz G4 PowerMac With Extra Yummy
A huge number of readers submitted the new
Dual Ghz Power Mac that
Apple has announced. Includes a Geforce 4 and assorted other bells and
whistles that will ring and blow for the Mac Junkie. They start
at $3k and seriously make me want a Mac.
I just bought a dual 500 G4 PowerMac about 1 1/2 years ago for $3,000 w/ an ATI Rage Pro 128. Now I can get a dual 1Ghz PowerMac w/ a GeForce4 for $3,000. Awesome!
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
The high end is 3k, the low end starts at 1,600. But that's without a superdrive or the GeForce4
Apple Press Release http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/jan/28pmg4.ht ml
The lowest priced PowerMac model is $1599 (US, no display). That's with the single-800 MHz processor.
The *top of the line* model with the dual-GHz is $2999.
I know that this article is specifically about the dual-GHz model, but don't give the impression that PowerMacs start at $3k. They're not all that expensive.
In addition, the PowerPC G4 can perform four (in some cases eight) 32-bit floating-point calculations in a single cycle -- two to four times faster than processors found in PCs.
That's fast. I just love the details behind the facts: Pentiums suck, I'll take 1 G4 over a P4 at ANY speed. Anyway, enough trolling, if you click on the processors link in the article, apple gives a pretty nice overview of why their dual processor G4's are really, really nice.
~ now you know
Under MacOS 9 you needed specially tuned apps to take advantage of that second CPU... Like Photoshop.
Under MacOS X, it's no longer required, and EVERY app now benefits from that second CPU. Just like Linux or Solaris would.
> a 3d card runs a 2d app 72 percent faster?
... your CPU is.
When you run your filters (which is where most photoshoppers are able to judge the 'speed' of their platform compared to past experiences or other platforms), the PowerPC-optimized version of Photoshop screams. I've seen it first hand, the G4 beside a higher-clocked P3, and the G4 simply obliterates the P3.
Now, I'm a PC guy, but I respect that when it comes to raw performance given a properly optimized and compiled app, the PowerPC chips just scream.
But most important lesson, geez, your videocard is not doing your calcs in a hardcore photoshop session
"Old man yells at systemd"
the NV17(-M) is NOT a Geforce 4 level product (it's the part to replace the Geforce2Go in the notebook arena)
the Geforce 4MX should (apparently) outpace a Ti500 slightly.
I should point out that the Mac had the Geforce 3 slightly before everyone else did. (only a couple of days, but hey, they WERE first)
The video cards have VGA connectors on them, they always have. They also have the ADC connector, which is what you need to plug in an apple monitor (it is a spec that ibm made a while ago). Of course, there are boxes you can buy to plug the monitor into machines that have DVII on them also (almost all shipping geforce3 cards have them, IIRC)
its called marketing.
The g5s are supposedly due for Macworld NY '02. These will be the sawtooth equivalent w/ DDR, 1394b and possibly USB 2.0. The current specs seem more inline with the recent Notebook upgrades/ speed bumps.
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
Seriously, you know you want one. It's the killer BSD box that you've wanted now! Just go out and get one!
Finally, dual-GHz. This is a big psychological barrier that Apple has crossed. I couldn't be happier.
--Bernie
It says that it "supports" up to three SCSI drives, whatever that means, but it comes with Ultra ATA drive stock. For a machine of this performance potential, there is no substitute for a really good scsi drive, like the Fujitsu MAN series.
For those that believe that IDE has caught up, I have done a comparison on a Sun Ultra 5, which comes with internal IDE drives, and an optional SCSI interface. We had the stock IDE, and a Sun labeled external SCSI drive, and the SCSI drive kicked old school at about 1.6 times faster.
Considering Apple is marketing this to graphics/music/multimedia pros, who really use bandwidth, this box needs SCSI.
It's the MX though. I have an obsolete GeForce (1) 256 DDR in my PC and at 32-bit colour it eclipses the GeForce2 MX, which itself is heavily bandwidth deprived. From the benchmarks given on Apple's site the GeForce4MX in this machine isn't all that.
If anything the GPU T&L is probably extremely fast, in which case they should have used a very high polygon test to benchmark and show the differences. As it is, using Quake 3 at 1024x768 32-bit is probably memory choking it.
Again, we bring the argument of CISC v. RISC up, and in this day and age that is of more importance than a chip's megahertz, which is simply a marketing myth (a well-spun one, but a myth all the same). The question should be: "How fast will the system do what I need it to do?" not "How fast is the system?" I suggest taking your dream Intel box and the top Power Mac and benchmarking them - especially looking at apps like Photoshop and Mathematica under Mac OS X. Once you've done that, then you can make the claims you're making and have things to back them up with...
ya. the computer you built has its own sound processor, whereas the G4 processors have to handle sound themselves. so while you're getting 145fps, that powermac with an actual sound card will probably be cranking out 150-160. crank it up to 1600x1200 and you'll watch your computer lose, and big time. i know, because i have a dual g4 with a geforce3 and a dual athlon with a gf3 ti500. the athlon is faster, but the g4 will still smoke yours when you add a real soundcard.
Food for thought.
Every once in a while I like to masturbate a new word into my vocabulary, even if I don't know what it means.
The GeForce 4 MX is really an enhanced GeForce 2 core. I know you will want a reference on this, but you'll have to take my word for it.
I yearn for you tragically
AT Tappman,
Chaplain, US Army
Actually, in Quake3, there is a limit that you need on Frames Per Second. The way Q3 does the rounding, the optimum FPS score is 142 for single-player games and 125 for multiplayer games. With your com_maxfps set to these values, you will strafe-jump farther and faster. It actually *can* make a big difference.
As far as 115 - it is rather sad, considering that my dual Athlon with a GeForce3 Ti 500 gets 200+ frames per second @ 1600x1200 (though I have it maxed at 125 - see above). But I have my settings tweaked well. My Dual G4 performs rather admirably as well - 1280x1024 and it runs about 130 frames per second. I could get it much faster - one only needs a sound card, which will relieve the processor of a significant burden. Try running Q3 with the sound off and it will be nearly as fast as current PC's, just as it should be.
Every once in a while I like to masturbate a new word into my vocabulary, even if I don't know what it means.
Bah, I did it the true Mac geek way and used the Summarize service from OmniWeb:
Services just kick ass. Anyone need anything Defined in OmniDictonary or Searched for in Google?
Okay, okay...here are some better specs...still trying to build comparable features from Dell:
--1 x 2.2Ghz Pentium 4 (note that I didn't build a dual machine)
--512 MB RAM
--80GB HD
--ATI Fire GL2, 64MB,VGA/DVI
--Basic sound card
--DVD-RW/CD-RW
--Modem (remember, I'm trying to compare)
So, summary: A single proc sys with close as possible specs from Dell is....
$3,778
Bottom line, as a PC-User, I've got something to think about.
If I want two displays that look the same, I have to enter into an imposing combination of needlessly wasted PCI slots, buying redundant cable adaptors, and spending a lot of money!
You're talking about spending lots of money on Apple's LCD displays. What's the difference?
The new video cards available on these Macs have one ADC output and one VGA output. There is absolutely no way to connect any current Apple display to that second monitor port.
Then connect anyone else's display to that second port. What's the problem here?
If you want a second Apple display you would have to purchase a video card with a DVI output to go into an un-accelerated PCI slot, and the special multi-hundred dollar adaptor described above to connect to the second Apple display's ADC connector.
You're already talking about spending a premium for the Apple display. Why are you worried about the price of hooking it up?
You're worried about how it looks, but then you're worried about how much it cost to make it look nice. Seems like you've got too little to worry about.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
I personally get along fine using the control key for all right-click-equivalent shortcuts in OS X. The rest of the time I enjoy running my fingers over a very simple, nicely finished, slickly designed titanium powerbook track pad with *one* mouse button.
Face it. Apple makes cool shit. Anyone who bitches them out for doing so is 1) too poor to afford one, 2) jealous. Well. sux 2 b u guys >:D
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
I do agree that OS X is a pig, but disagree that it is the underlying design. Something went terribly wrong in the transition from NextStep to OS X.
My Turbo-Color Slab from NeXT (33Mhz 68030 (040?) IIRC with 32MB of RAM) seems just as zippy as my 400Mhz G4 with 1.5GB of RAM.
okay. you're lying. either that or exaggerating. i know this because, believe i am typing this response in OmniWeb 2, running on NeXTSTEP 3.3, running on a TurboColor. it's a good exercise in patience, bringing me back to my old days.
www.nytimes.com, for example, takes about a minute and a half to render. this may have been "zippy" then but no one can say the same now. what is more admirable, i think, is that i can use this as the only head in my room (i have a NetBSD/x86 box, but it's running headless) and i have something that is both beautiful and functional. but not zippy.
you might want to take a look at http://www.apple.com/powermac/graphics.html
It talks about Dual Display Support... Each Geforce4MX card offers built-in dual display support in two useful modes. Extended Desktop mode allows users to work on two monitors at once for increased desktop real-estate (and increased productivity). Video mirroring is useful when presenting, so you can see the same image on a projector that you're seeing on your Apple display. Each card can drive an ADC based Apple flat panel as well as any device with a VGA connector by simply attaching both monitors.
750Mhz Pentium III: 1.9Mkey/sec
1.33G AMD: 4.7Mkey/sec
8x250Mhz SunSparc Ultra: 3.2Mkey/sec
2x800Mhz G4: 16.5Mkey/sec
Ahh, but you forget one problem. A branch mispredict on the longer pipeline means more instructions need to be cancelled, causing massive slowdowns.
A shorter pipeline is better overall. The only reason to have a massively long pipeline is to jack up clock speeds.
Ummm....NO. What a longer pipeline does is allow you to run a higher clock speed. The P4 explicitly gave up IPC (Instructions per clock) and took a big hit for pipeline stalls (What happens when the speculative execution unit guesses wrong) in order to hit 1.5 GHz and above. The Athlon XP does this as well, but it's a much smaller hit than the P4, due to a shorter Pipeline (About 10-12 stage IIRC). In fact the Current G4 (PPC7450)made the same trade off, to get to 800+MHz, but it still only has a 7 stage pipeline, vs a ~10stage one for the Athlon and 20 stage pieline for the P4. The IPC on the G4 is higher than any current x86 processor, this gives the G4 about a 130% advantage over a similarly clocked Athlon, or a 150% advanyage over a P4. The G4's big advantage is Altivec. The G4's Altivec Unit is so much faster than the P4's SSE unit it's not funny, the G4's are also FPU monsters. This is where the big performance for Graphics and DV work comes from, otherwise, the Macs are still a bit slower than a top end PC overall, but since the G4 is the fastest thing out there in its target market, it doesn't matter.
The Crazy Finn
(Note that performance margins are guesstimates based on Benchmarks and relative IPC)
"You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
Oh yeah, one more thing...
Your ADC to VGA connector is available for gefen.com for $49.
From Gefen.com:
For those who purchased Apple Computers latest G4 dual 800MHZ Power Mac G4, 867MHZ Power Mac G4, or the 733MHZ Power Mac G4, now you can use the ADC connector with a VGA analog monitor.
Gefen supplies the custom cable as a "plug and play" solution to be used with the Twinview graphics card. The Gefen solution enables operation using two analog monitors side by side.
nVidia only makes the Geforce3 and Geforce2MX for the Apple. Check out their products page. The dude probably got confused between G4 and Geforce. There's probably a Geforce2 in that thing. And everybody knows that the Geforce2MX are pretty shit. And 1.1 billion textured pixels, as Apple claims in their add, is about par for the Geforce2MX.
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
While it's nice to see someone point out the meaning behind this piece of marketing guff, it may not be all that inaccurate in this instance.
...
Defining "quantum" as the smallest increment does not define the size. It could still be very large. A quantum is a discrete change.
Hence, if the processor speed goes from, e.g. 800MHz to 1Ghz without passing through any other speeds, then that would be a quantum leap. If "nature" disallows for any changes of less than 200MHz, then it would be the smallest allowable change, and still pretty impressive.
By the way, I don't remember this from my introduction to modern physics, this sort of stuff hardly qualifies as introductory