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.

19 of 875 comments (clear)

  1. Moore's Law in effect? by toupsie · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  2. Wrong Pricing by alernon · · Score: 3, Informative

    The high end is 3k, the low end starts at 1,600. But that's without a superdrive or the GeForce4

  3. They do not *start* at $3k by MatriXOracle · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. Damn by Uttles · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  5. Dual Processors and Software by BoarderPhreak · · Score: 4, Informative
    It seems a LOT of people are simply mistaken about dual processor Macs...

    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.

    1. Re:Dual Processors and Software by jkujawa · · Score: 4, Informative

      Every app will benifit because, even though every non-threaded app will only run on one processor, the OS will split running apps among processors, each processor will only have half as much work to do.

      I'm not certain that Darwin is able to move a process from one processor to the other, but either way, this is a win.

    2. Re:Dual Processors and Software by LenE · · Score: 5, Informative

      What he means is that the OS will balance load by divvying up the processes and threads (tasks) between the available processors. Also, if an application is threaded (in any of the supported thread architectures) then it will also automagically take advantage of the available processors.

      OS X maps processes and threads to mach tasks, which will get pre-emptively scheduled on available processors. I don't have my docs with me, but there are three different threading systems which will take advantage of multiple processors. The exception is applications running in Classic (MacOS 9 running on OS X) are stuck on the processor that Classic is running on. These apps will run threaded, but are bound by the limitations imposed by the Classic environment.

      -- Len

  6. Re:Where's the audience? by psxndc · · Score: 3, Informative
    To piggy back this comment: Graphics people need all the processing power so that they can have Photoshop, Illustrator and one or two other graphics programs open at the same time (especially for animators). IIRC, Photoshop itself has built in dual proc support.

    psxndc

    --

    The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.

  7. Re:macs by gamgee5273 · · Score: 5, Informative
    I suggest you go to a local CompUSA or Apple Store and ask them - nicely - to open the display G4. The cooling system is minicule - a heatsink with case fans - compared to what has to be done with Pentium IIIs and IVs (some designs look as though they would make impressive window unit air conditioners).

    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...

  8. Re:115 fps Quake 3 1024x768 32bit by dhamsaic · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
  9. Re:Pathetic Q3 FPS numbers by dhamsaic · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
  10. Re:Less and less BTO - bums me out by Mononoke · · Score: 3, Informative
    Wow, this is the first time I've seen someone actually pissed that they can't run an additional very expensive monitor on their system.

    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
  11. Re:lunix by Frothy+Walrus · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  12. Re:Less and less BTO - bums me out by jimmcq · · Score: 3, Informative


    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.

  13. RC5 stats - by phandel · · Score: 3, Informative

    750Mhz Pentium III: 1.9Mkey/sec
    1.33G AMD: 4.7Mkey/sec
    8x250Mhz SunSparc Ultra: 3.2Mkey/sec
    2x800Mhz G4: 16.5Mkey/sec

    1. Re:RC5 stats - by akuma(x86) · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you look at the assembly code, you will see that the algorithm's critical path is littered with ROTL (Rotate Left) instructions. These chains of dependent instructions can also be parallelized with SIMD instructions. RC5 is not a measure of how good your processor is, it is a measure of how fast you can do ROTLs.

      I believe that altivec provides a SIMD version of ROTL which is why G4s do well.

      In contrast, x86 provides no MMX/SSE instructions for ROTL

      The Pentium-4 takes 4 clocks to do a ROTL. Yikes.

      Athlon takes a single cycle for the ROTL.

  14. Re:Talk about misinformation! by TheCrazyFinn · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  15. Re:Less and less BTO - bums me out by tonywong · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  16. Servers coming soon... by 90XDoubleSide · · Score: 3, Informative
    MacCentral just reported (OK, it was five hours ago) that there are server editions up on the online store, to be shipping next month. Here are the specs if you don't want to read the other three sentences of the article:

    • 933MHz PowerPC G4; Mac OS X Server software; 256K L2 cache and 2MB L3 cache; 256MB SDRAM memory (PC-133); 80GB 7200 rpm Ultra ATA drive; and a CD-RW drive for US$2,799.00
    • Dual 1-GHz PowerPC G4; Mac OS X Server software 256K L2 cache and 2MB L3 cache; 512MB SDRAM memory (PC-133) 80GB 7200 rpm Ultra ATA drive; and a CD-RW drive for $3,299.00
    • Dual 1-GHz PowerPC G4; Mac OS X Server software; 256K L2 cache and 2MB L3 cache; 1GB SDRAM memory (PC-133) 72GB 10000 rpm Ultra 160 SCSI drive; and a CD-RW drive for $4,549.00
    --
    "Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith