New G4s available

ulrik

ulrik

Registered
In case some people haven't seen it yet:

You can order the new G4s with GeForce 4 MX and speed bumped processor in the online store.
 
But the prices have decreased across the board.

Now, the high end machine is $2999 (before it was $3499)

The mid line machine is $2299 (before it was $2299)

And the entry level machine is $1599 (it was $1699)

Faster speeds and lower prices. Has Apple finally taken notice of how the computer industry is supposed to work?

:)
 
I hope that we will hit 1.5Gz before summer and 2Gz end of this year.

And PC user will lose one more reason to hate Mac :)
 
Good move apple with going for the GF4 MX for now keeping the prices down, very good move!

Dualies at 1GHZ I'd like to see some benchmarks, cmon Rubinstein release a "benchmark madness" QT movie for us and let us soak up the distortions.


DDR would have been nice though, but understandable.

Good move apple on prices, finally you have learned, Im off to buy one now.
 
Good pricing, and they're still doing the "crystal clear savings"!
Wish I had some money.

Is anyone else irritated that they don't let you strip the machines down to bare minimum anymore?
 
On further inspection. It's a new promotion. Not as good, but something.

Hey it ends March 31st! Let the speculation begin.
 
Actually the new promotion is better or worse depending on what you WERE going to buy.

Before, the promotion was based on which POWERMAC you bought. So even if you bought a Cinema Display for the 733 MHz PowerMac, you'd only get $100 off. Conversely, if you bought the dual 800 MHz PowerMac with a 15" Apple Studio Display, you'd basically get the display for free.

Now it's based on the display. So you can get the Cinema Display and the new low-end 800 MHz PowerMac with a $500 savings, where before you'd only get $100 off. But on the downside, if you get a 15" Apple Studio Display with a dual 1 GHz machine, you'll only get $100 off, where before you'd actually get $500.

So it's basically the same -- now instead of having to splurge for an expensive PowerMac to get better savings, you have to splurge for an expensive display to get the better savings. Oh, well.
 
Anybody knows anything about this GeForce 4 MX?
It is slower than the GeForce 3 in the older G4, so maybe it is just the GeForce 3 MX, only Apple sells it as 4? :confused:

The normal order to release new hardware for Nvidia is:
GeForce
GeForce Ti
GeForce MX
 
Originally posted by Tigger
Anybody knows anything about this GeForce 4 MX?
It is slower than the GeForce 3 in the older G4, so maybe it is just the GeForce 3 MX, only Apple sells it as 4? :confused:

The normal order to release new hardware for Nvidia is:
GeForce
GeForce Ti
GeForce MX
Click to expand...

Well since the Ti's have only been released once, I doubt you can factor them into the release schedule.

There is no GeForce 3MX. This is the 4. It should be slightly faster or the same speed as the GeForce 3 (NOT the Ti500). And this time Nvidia released the MX first, and next is the GeForce 4.
 
Originally posted by jokell82


Well since the Ti's have only been released once, I doubt you can factor them into the release schedule.

There is no GeForce 3MX. This is the 4. It should be slightly faster or the same speed as the GeForce 3 (NOT the Ti500). And this time Nvidia released the MX first, and next is the GeForce 4.
Click to expand...
But I read at xlr8yourmac that the 4 seems to be a bit slower than the 3.
What exactly are the advantages of the 4 that it legitimates the versionnumber++?

Another thing:
The Radeon 7500 is faster than the GeForce 4 MX and ist cheaper BTO :confused:
 
Originally posted by Tigger

But I read at xlr8yourmac that the 4 seems to be a bit slower than the 3.
What exactly are the advantages of the 4 that it legitimates the versionnumber++?

Another thing:
The Radeon 7500 is faster than the GeForce 4 MX and ist cheaper BTO :confused:
Click to expand...

I don't know about the advantages of the 4 over the 3.

However, the Radeon 7500 is NOT faster than the GeForce4 MX. Out of all the benchmarks I saw on that xlr8yourmac article, I believe the Radeon only won two of them.
 
The mantra of my PC friends is the classic "games better on PC, blah blah blah". I can now safely say that I would comfortably put my new G4 DP 1 gig up against any PC in a gaming performance match and hold my own.

Will the PC get better frame rates? Probably. But can anyone really tell the difference between 115 FPS and 135 FPS? I can't. Everything I've tried runs great at full screen all options on. Pretty impressive for a Mac.
 
Originally posted by mindbend
Will the PC get better frame rates? Probably. But can anyone really tell the difference between 115 FPS and 135 FPS? I can't. Everything I've tried runs great at full screen all options on. Pretty impressive for a Mac.
Click to expand...

You can't tell the difference between 100 fps and 2,000 fps if your monitor's set to run at a refresh of 85Hz. The monitor's only refreshing at a rate of 85 times per second, so the extra frames/second aren't perceivable by the human eye. Think about it this way -- if your monitor was set, theoretically, to 1Hz (1 refresh per second) and you played a game and got 5fps, do you think you'd be able to see all 5 frames in that second, or just the 1 that coincided with the 1 refresh of the screen?

Let the PC users blab all they want about how great games run on their machines, then tell them you're gonna go home to your Mac and actually get some work done. Let them know exactly what they're saying -- that their PC platform is good for games, since that's what they use to try and convince you that the PC is better. Sure, better for being UNproductive and playing games!
 
It's my understanding that those very high frame rates (115, 135, whatever) are achieved at low resolutions. If you prefer to play at 1025, 1152, etc. than the frame rates will drop to levels where you can actually see the difference between mac and pc performance.

Beyond that, these quake III tests are just benchmarks. As the newer games come out they will also demostrate the performance advantage that the PC has over the mac.

If gaming is a big part of your computer usage, then the PC is probably a better choice (or a gaming console). If you want to manage your digital life on the best consumer OS ever made, then Apple is the way to go.

My next machine will be an Apple. I'm just writing to let people know that the differences are real and that the fact that both benchmark very well on a 1998 game doesn't mean high end hardware is unnessesary.
 
Originally posted by vanguard
It's my understanding that those very high frame rates (115, 135, whatever) are achieved at low resolutions. If you prefer to play at 1025, 1152, etc. than the frame rates will drop to levels where you can actually see the difference between mac and pc performance.
Click to expand...

That's true -- lower resolutions usually equate to higher frame rates... but my point is that if you're running your monitor, at, say, 640x480 or 800x600 at 85Hz then, pretty much, the highest frame rate you'll be able to "see" is 85fps, because your monitor, running at 85Hz, is only showing you 85fps. Likewise, if you run your monitor with a refresh rate of 100Hz, then 100fps is just about all you're gonna see. The game may report to you that it's banging out 200fps, but you're only "seeing" 100fps because your monitor is only refreshing the screen 100 times a second.

For example, let's say I've got a monitor running 1024x768 @ 85Hz and I'm playing Quake III. Quake III tells me I'm pulling, say, 100fps. Well, lemme swap my card out for a billy-bad-ass card, and run my monitor at 1024x768 @ 85Hz and load up Quake III again. Quake III now tells me I'm pulling, say, 200fps. Well, my eyes can't tell the difference between 100fps and 200fps in that setup, because my monitor is only showing me 85Hz, or 85fps basically.

So, let's now say I've got a PC and a Mac sitting side-by-side, both running Quake III. The PC monitor is set to 1024x768 @ 85Hz, and so is the Mac monitor (that's a common monitor resolution/refresh). The PC reports that Quake III is doing 150fps. The Mac reports that Quake III is doing 100fps. Either way, I'm only REALLY "seeing" 85fps due to the refresh of the monitor (85Hz = 85 refreshes per second). Barely a perceivable difference at all between the machines.
 
FPS also are important for the control in the game, as far as I know. Even if you may not see the difference between 60 fps and 100 fps, where is still a difference that your keyboard input and mouse input is checked more often.

But anyway, I don't think anyway this frame rate benchmarking is that important. The Mac is not a game platform, it is too expensive for that.

And where is the point to show PC users that the Mac is better or the other way round? :rolleyes:
Everybody should just use the system he likes, period.
 
Originally posted by Tigger
FPS also are important for the control in the game, as far as I know. Even if you may not see the difference between 60 fps and 100 fps, where is still a difference that your keyboard input and mouse input is checked more often.

But anyway, I don't think anyway this frame rate benchmarking is that important. The Mac is not a game platform, it is too expensive for that.
Click to expand...

Well, your mouse/keyboard input rate is controlled by the system, regardless of the game or application you're using. Quake III checks the mouse/keyboard through system calls -- not it's own software. FPS and keyboard/mouse rates are not related.

I do agree though, that between 60fps and 100fps there may be a slight increase in smoothness of the game -- but not due to the keyboard/mouse issue. In a way, these two things (FPS and input control) are intertwined, but they're like second-generation-family-removed-inlaw-red-headed-step-children in relation. Still, you're only seeing a max frame rate limited by the refresh (Hz) of the monitor.

200fps is ridiculous. 100fps is quite respectable. 60fps is smooth. 30fps is acceptable sometimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top