Macintosh Forums

[Wiglaf]

Actually, no...dual processor most certainly does not double the speed. The speed increase is usually about 20% in most apps (including Photoshop). When doing something like 3DStudio it can be as much as 80%, though.

benchmarks?

And you really don't seem to get it: Why compare a dual G4 to a single P4 when you can also build dual P4 systems?

there are no desktop, made for the home PCs that ship with more than one processor.

if you want to see if macs are faster than PCs, you use the two best in the home desktop market.

a 2.0 GHz P4 is cutting edge. as good as it gets.
a single 830 MHz chip is great for macs, but it isn't the best in its category.
a dual 800 MHz G4 processor is cutting edge. as good as it gets.
a dual P4 system is out of the picture - not in the right market.
a G4 server is out of the picture - not in the right market.

verry simple.

It's a blatantly obviously attempt to make the Mac look faster

you're right, glonk, anything that gives the mac a chance is cruel and evil. really, you don't see any problem with putting the fastest damn PC out there up against a mid ranged mac? the dual 800 isn't a server, it's designed for home use.

by pitting it up against something that it still wouldn't beat in most apps (non-Altivec).

benchmarks?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
benchmarks?

http://www6.tomshardware.com/mainboard/01q1/010201/dual-07.html

there are no desktop, made for the home PCs that ship with more than one processor.

if you want to see if macs are faster than PCs, you use the two best in the home desktop market.

a 2.0 GHz P4 is cutting edge. as good as it gets.
a single 830 MHz chip is great for macs, but it isn't the best in its category.
a dual 800 MHz G4 processor is cutting edge. as good as it gets.
a dual P4 system is out of the picture - not in the right market.
a G4 server is out of the picture - not in the right market.

verry simple.

It's not that simple.
First of all, the 'home' user doesn't need the insane Photoshop performance. Only workstation users would need that.

For that reason, you compare a workstation Mac (Dual 800) vs. Workstation PC (Dual 2.0GHz).

you're right, glonk, anything that gives the mac a chance is cruel and evil. really, you don't see any problem with putting the fastest damn PC out there up against a mid ranged mac? the dual 800 isn't a server, it's designed for home use.

The Dual 800 is designed for power users and workstations. Apple is marketing it for consumers also because they simply can't clock the 867 any higher.

What you said is evil because a dual 800 is about the same price as a dual 2.0GHz, so why wouldn't you compare them?
You want to compare a $3500 Mac to a $1700 PC on the grounds that the Mac is also marketed to the desktop...

benchmarks?

I have to go right now, but I had these in my bookmarks:

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/articles/3dfx_voodoo5_mac/3.shtml

It's over a year old, though. But it's still G4 vs. P3 (this is the P3, not the P4, mind you.)

[Wiglaf]

It's over a year old, though. But it's still G4 vs. P3 (this is the P3, not the P4, mind you.)

I wanted dual G4 benchmarks

http://www6.tomshardware.com/mainbo...01/dual-07.html

that hardly tells me whether or not the mac's performance would increase or decrease in the techtv ramble, given that those are completely different processors doing completely different things.

It's not that simple.
First of all, the 'home' user doesn't need the insane Photoshop performance. Only workstation users would need that.

For that reason, you compare a workstation Mac (Dual 800) vs. Workstation PC (Dual 2.0GHz).

your logic: it owns photoshop, it's a workstation.
the fastest mac owns photoshop, it's a workstation.

the dual 800 is no different from the 867 in that the design is for artsy stuff. why use the 733/867, or any mac, then?

What you said is evil because a dual 800 is about the same price as a dual 2.0GHz

link?

so why wouldn't you compare them?
You want to compare a $3500 Mac to a $1700 PC on the grounds that the Mac is also marketed to the desktop...

why recognize XP as an OS then? it merges the workstation/desktop market, and it's advertised for both.

OSX is only comparable to Windows 98.

the price is what it boils down to, and yes it's extremely high , even though you have to keep in mind apple isn't the only place to buy mac hardware from.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
I wanted dual G4 benchmarks

You're the Mac zealot, go fetch.

that hardly tells me whether or not the mac's performance would increase or decrease in the techtv ramble, given that those are completely different processors doing completely different things.

How SMP (dual processors) work is a limitation to why some apps are better than others for it. No matter HOW the processor is designed, it won't be 100% efficient if you add another processor. In most apps, across all systems, it's about 20% faster per additional CPU. In things like Cinema4D and 3DStudio that percentage is much, much higher though.

your logic: it owns photoshop, it's a workstation.
the fastest mac owns photoshop, it's a workstation.

That is correct: I'd place the dual G4 machines in the workstation category. That doesn't mean you cant' game on it (by any means), but just that it designed to be a powerhouse for apps that need it.

the dual 800 is no different from the 867 in that the design is for artsy stuff. why use the 733/867, or any mac, then?

I have no idea, I can only speculate that Apple had some trouble getting it to syncronize at such a weird clockcycle (867) so stuck with the flat 800.

link?

Go customize one on Dell.com yourself. (Hint: http://www.dell.com/us/en/bsd/produc..._precn_530.htm)

why recognize XP as an OS then? it merges the workstation/desktop market, and it's advertised for both.

OSX is only comparable to Windows 98.

Huh? There are two versions of XP: Home, and Professional.
'Home' is intended to replace Windows 9x for home users, Professional is intended for workstations and power users.

There's several variations of NT 5.1 (XP). In a few months, "Windows .NET Server" and "Windows .NET Advanced Server" and "Windows .NET Datacenter" will be shipping also. All NT 5.1

the price is what it boils down to, and yes it's extremely high , even though you have to keep in mind apple isn't the only place to buy mac hardware from.

Apple regulates the market on it.

[Wiglaf]

Glonk,

it's safe to say the fastest desktop mac (say what you want, it was designed for home use) is a faster setup than the fastest desktop PC. all this talk about the market it's in, what it's good at, etc, is irrelevant because it functions mainly as a home computer just like the single 867 when you get down to it.

the price is the only issue. obviously $3500 is a huge amount to shell out for a dual G4, and IMO it's grossly overpriced. so, when it comes to cost, the PC wins - no one has ever claimed otherwise.

when you look at things like cost, software availability, and hardware, you go PC. They're just better for that. but when you want cool designs , original and functional operating systems (OS9x is far more user friendly than Windows9x), and a rock solid setup in general, you go mac. I've never had a crash on 8.6 since I cleaned out some problem files. none at all, it's been running fine for several weeks now. windows 9x has blue screened me waay too many times.

ease of use goes to apple. value probably goes to the PC, but it still depends on what you use the thing for. games? no real contest, if you want the latest and greatest on release. but for the internet, essays , and incredible and stable software, the better product is mac.

I have no idea, I can only speculate that Apple had some trouble getting it to syncronize at such a weird clockcycle (867) so stuck with the flat 800.

I was asking why the test used an 867, because those are made for artsy stuff too. reread my question.

dual P4s aren't meant for home use. they aren't desktops with some tweaks. they're geared only for workstations and servers, judging by dell.com. maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't buy one because it just isn't a desktop. a dual G4 is one just as much as the single G4 is.

[Asher]

dp

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
it's safe to say the fastest desktop mac (say what you want, it was designed for home use) is a faster setup than the fastest desktop PC. all this talk about the market it's in, what it's good at, etc, is irrelevant because it functions mainly as a home computer just like the single 867 when you get down to it.

No no no -- That is not safe to say.
It may or may not be faster in Photoshop, because it's one of the only apps out there with real Altivec enhancements. Without Altivec, the G4 is no more than a glorified G3! And the G3 performed about on par with a Pentium II clock for clock.

Not to mention the fact that the vast majority of programs out there don't take advantage of a second processor (it needs to be designed to use it, having two doesn't automatically double your performance like you seem to believe).

the price is the only issue. obviously $3500 is a huge amount to shell out for a dual G4, and IMO it's grossly overpriced. so, when it comes to cost, the PC wins - no one has ever claimed otherwise.

You keep saying "blahblah, the Mac is faster for home because the dual 800 is fast". You've shown no benchmarks with the Dual 800, first of all. Second of all, for the exact same price (give or take $100) you can get a dual 2.0GHz Pentium 4 Xeon with PC800 RDRAM (3.2GB/s vs the 1GB/s on the Mac...).

when you look at things like cost, software availability, and hardware, you go PC. They're just better for that. but when you want cool designs , original and functional operating systems (OS9x is far more user friendly than Windows9x), and a rock solid setup in general, you go mac. I've never had a crash on 8.6 since I cleaned out some problem files. none at all, it's been running fine for several weeks now. windows 9x has blue screened me waay too many times.

I was playing with a buddy's G3 laptop the other day (it's running MacOS 8.6). He was playing Quake II, tried to go use the calculator for a second, and Quake II kept running on the middle of the screen. We couldn't kill it at all, we tried everything. His solution was to hit the reboot button.

MacOS prior to OS X is on par with Windows 9x. Don't even try to argue that MacOS 8/9 is a "superior" OS in any way, it's basically very identical to Win9x except with a different interface (which you claim is more friendly, I find most of it annoying -- personal preference I guess).

ease of use goes to apple. value probably goes to the PC, but it still depends on what you use the thing for. games? no real contest, if you want the latest and greatest on release. but for the internet, essays , and incredible and stable software, the better product is mac.

Wiglaf, I'm beginning to think you keep repeating this to annoy me.
Until OS X, the Mac platform didn't have a real stable nor incredible OS. Snap out of it.
As for incredible and stable software: There's plenty of that on the PC. How many CAD programs are done on the Mac vs. PC Workstations now?

I was asking why the test used an 867, because those are made for artsy stuff too. reread my question.

What exactly IS your question? "the dual 800 is no different from the 867 in that the design is for artsy stuff. why use the 733/867, or any mac, then?"
I don't know -- why are you asking me?
I'd never use the 733 nor the 867 G4. I'm happy with my PC processors.

dual P4s aren't meant for home use. they aren't desktops with some tweaks. they're geared only for workstations and servers, judging by dell.com. maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't buy one because it just isn't a desktop. a dual G4 is one just as much as the single G4 is.

Wiglaf, that's some pretty piss-poor logic.
Really, it's frustrating to debate with someone with that kind of mindset.
You wouldn't use a dual processor P4 (which is about the same price as the dual processor G4) just because it's not marketed towards the 'desktop' but rather 'high end desktop (workstation)'?

[King_Of_Hearts]

Can the real Asher please remove his HEAD out of the sand

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!




B.T.W. MAC RULES

[Wiglaf]

you wouldn't be his DL, would you? now that'd be funny.

[Wiglaf]

I was playing with a buddy's G3 laptop the other day (it's running MacOS 8.6). He was playing Quake II, tried to go use the calculator for a second, and Quake II kept running on the middle of the screen. We couldn't kill it at all, we tried everything. His solution was to hit the reboot button.

MacOS prior to OS X is on par with Windows 9x. Don't even try to argue that MacOS 8/9 is a "superior" OS in any way, it's basically very identical to Win9x except with a different interface (which you claim is more friendly, I find most of it annoying -- personal preference I guess).

first off, that's your friend's problem, jumping at the reboot so quickly. and I highly doubt that 8.6 is at fault in any way. really, how is that an OS screwup?

Wiglaf, that's some pretty piss-poor logic.
Really, it's frustrating to debate with someone with that kind of mindset.
You wouldn't use a dual processor P4 (which is about the same price as the dual processor G4) just because it's not marketed towards the 'desktop' but rather 'high end desktop (workstation)'?

I skipped some of your earlier paragraphs mainly to sum it all up here.

powermac duals are so expensive it's pathetic. $3500 is far too much for any reasonable buyer to pay, for such little return in RAM, graphics, etc. the strength is very noticeable in the processor, although it's not needed if your focus is on games.

if you've been honest about some of the facts I have to rely on you for, then for that reason the test was fine in terms of the mac's speed. the P4 speed shouldn't be so high, though, for the same reason you get upset at a direct athlon/P4 comparison: one was released recently, and just months before the other would be updated. a 2.0 GHz PC was just released, a dual 800 G4 is pretty old now. in half a year, though, you'll be seeing superfast G5s, and by your same standard I could start comparing it directly to an aging, year old P4. only, since the mac won in this same tough scenario in techtv's test, the P4s chances aren't looking good if it actually gets put in the hotseat.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
first off, that's your friend's problem, jumping at the reboot so quickly. and I highly doubt that 8.6 is at fault in any way. really, how is that an OS screwup?

The poor fault tolerance, by chance?
Oh, btw, I was wrong. It's OS 9.1 (although his bootup screen says ChaOS 9.1).

powermac duals are so expensive it's pathetic. $3500 is far too much for any reasonable buyer to pay, for such little return in RAM, graphics, etc. the strength is very noticeable in the processor, although it's not needed if your focus is on games.

So much for the designed-for-home-users argument, eh?

if you've been honest about some of the facts I have to rely on you for, then for that reason the test was fine in terms of the mac's speed. the P4 speed shouldn't be so high, though, for the same reason you get upset at a direct athlon/P4 comparison: one was released recently, and just months before the other would be updated. a 2.0 GHz PC was just released, a dual 800 G4 is pretty old now.

You're twisting things. I was not upset, I was explaining. And I was referring to the core itself. In that case, it was comparing an Athlon XP core (few days old) to the P4 core (year old). There's a new P4 core iteration due out in January.

In this case, the dual G4s are actually using a newer core than the P4, I believe. So that argument wouldn't cut it (When was the G4+ released, anyway?)

in half a year, though, you'll be seeing superfast G5s, and by your same standard I could start comparing it directly to an aging, year old P4. only, since the mac won in this same tough scenario in techtv's test, the P4s chances aren't looking good if it actually gets put in the hotseat.

No, what you'd compare the G5s to would be the Northwood P4s. Probably clocking at 2.2->2.4GHz with 4.2GB/s RAM. That'll be a good fight, actually: I've heard the G5 is supposed to be very fast. Let's hope Motorolla got a clue this time and learned the secret to success is having it be able to scale worth a damn, unlike the G4.

[Wiglaf]

The poor fault tolerance, by chance?
Oh, btw, I was wrong. It's OS 9.1 (although his bootup screen says ChaOS 9.1).

I'd say it's quake II's problem, considering it's a four year old program that probably doesn't even have a quit button.

So much for the designed-for-home-users argument, eh?

no, it's still designed for home users, it's just way overpriced. actually it's design is for artsy stuff as well, but the same applies to the 867, etc.

In this case, the dual G4s are actually using a newer core than the P4, I believe. So that argument wouldn't cut it (When was the G4+ released, anyway?)

G4s were released IIRC (I'll check this out more later) in late 1999. In mid/late 2000 you started to see 733s. that makes this test horribly off the mark and unfair, since techtv compared a year (8-12 month) old mac to a just released 2.0 GHz P4...

No, what you'd compare the G5s to would be the Northwood P4s. Probably clocking at 2.2->2.4GHz with 4.2GB/s RAM. That'll be a good fight, actually: I've heard the G5 is supposed to be very fast. Let's hope Motorolla got a clue this time and learned the secret to success is having it be able to scale worth a damn, unlike the G4.

nope, I'd do just what techtv did and compare the new G5 to a year old P4. what, you can do it for macs but not PCs?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
I'd say it's quake II's problem, considering it's a four year old program that probably doesn't even have a quit button.

If you wanna play that game, 99% of the crashes on Windows 9x are not Windows' fault. But the programs running...

G4s were released IIRC (I'll check this out more later) in late 1999. In mid/late 2000 you started to see 733s. that makes this test horribly off the mark and unfair, since techtv compared a year (8-12 month) old mac to a just released 2.0 GHz P4...

That's not what I asked, Wiglaf.
The 733 and up G4s are actually G4+. Motorolla couldn't get the G4 itself to clock any higher, so they made the pipeline longer so it does less per clock and a bunch of other things. I believe it came out in late 2000, so that would make it the same age as the P4 core.

nope, I'd do just what techtv did and compare the new G5 to a year old P4. what, you can do it for macs but not PCs?

You still don't seem to understand.
The 867MHz is a G4+, which is about the same age as the P4. The test is fair.
The G5 and the Northwood P4 will come out around the same time, so that's what you'd compare.

You're trying to bash the techtv article based on claims that are way off-base and inaccurate...

[King_Of_Hearts]

What is DL????

[Wiglaf]

If you wanna play that game, 99% of the crashes on Windows 9x are not Windows' fault. But the programs running...

since you tried to access the calculator from within a game that evidently couldn't minimize itself, I would think it's not an OS problem but a pretty big oversight in the coding. I can use a different program while running The Sims (summer 2000) on 8.6, so it's quake II's problem if 9.0.1 or whatever needs a reboot...

That's not what I asked, Wiglaf.
The 733 and up G4s are actually G4+. Motorolla couldn't get the G4 itself to clock any higher, so they made the pipeline longer so it does less per clock and a bunch of other things. I believe it came out in late 2000, so that would make it the same age as the P4 core.

I need some links and proof, not what you think. what you just said has some pretty big weight in this arguement, please back it up.

You still don't seem to understand.
The 867MHz is a G4+, which is about the same age as the P4. The test is fair.
The G5 and the Northwood P4 will come out around the same time, so that's what you'd compare.

You're trying to bash the techtv article based on claims that are way off-base and inaccurate...

again, I can't be sure when the 867 came out (I'm still looking, but until then the best date I've gotten is mid 2000 for a 733). wasn't the 2.0 GHz P4 released this year?