# 2.53GHz Pentium



## designer (May 7, 2002)

2.53GHz Pentium with 533 megahertz  bus speed has been released.

Where is my G5!!!!!!!


----------



## Alexandert (May 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by designer _
> *2.53GHz Pentium with 533 megahertz  bus speed has been released.
> 
> Where is my G5!!!!!!!
> ...



Good for you!

So tell me, what would you use it for???


----------



## designer (May 7, 2002)

Alexandert,

I am just wondering about G5. That's it....

I am using PC at work but I don't like it anyway.

Anyway, I wish I could get a Mac with G5 this year.


----------



## dricci (May 7, 2002)

This has been put on MacNN already. I'll have to admit that even I am a little worried about this one. Intel/Dell's bus speeds will surpase Apple's processor speed, soon!

I'm not exactly sure what's taking Apple so long to get their hardware up to par with their software.


----------



## bighairydog (May 7, 2002)

Ah, but Dual 2.5GHz boxes will not be so easy to come by. A Dual 1 GHz G4 still wipes a pentium off the field. And My XP box at work today crashed and forgot what a printer is. Uurgh...

Still, I'm with you - G5s ASAP would be real nice. Even a G4 with a faster bus would be a bonus.

Bernie     )


----------



## dricci (May 7, 2002)

I doubt a dual 1 GHz G4 is even in the same leage as this thing. The BUS is like 4 times more, which will give it a lot of performance.

Hmm, Apple... Maybe we should reconsider this whole x86 thing?


----------



## designer (May 7, 2002)

Please and please,

No x86.


----------



## julguribye (May 7, 2002)

Or 68k


----------



## ZeroAltitude (May 7, 2002)

bighairydog:

You should take a look at the showdown between a dual 1Ghz G4 vs. the fastest Athlon or P4 on the block at

www.barefeats.com

Illuminating stuff by a site dedicated to macs.

-0


----------



## satanicpoptart (May 7, 2002)

the intel mother board is acutly not 4 times faster. intel impliments a technology called quad speed burst of some dumb name. its theoreticaly operates 4 times faster, but not really, the 400 mhz bus is actualy only 100 mhz and the new 533 is actualy only 133 so its not as bad as it looks. also if you consider that the pentium 4 is about 4 times as big as the g4.. and has more then twice as many pipline stages, that makes intel look more and more like they are cheaters.  and of course intel boxes run windows so who gives a flying fawk how fast they are, with windows it will always suck.


----------



## designer (May 7, 2002)

satanicpoptart,

I didn't notice that. 

Oh Intel .... cheating again..


----------



## RyanLang (May 7, 2002)

none of this processor nonsense matters if you love your mac like I do   . Just create great stuff with it, and if it's not "fast" enough for you, then you can go use a POS Wintel Box.


----------



## xaqintosh (May 7, 2002)

there is no point in comparing sppeds between G4s and P4s, They are totally different (in the fact that G4s are just better) and run totally different operating systems (in the fact that Mac OS X is ° times better). Besides, Mhz aren't everything and a dp 1ghz Powermac is just as fast if not faster than a 2.4 P4


----------



## dricci (May 7, 2002)

Try convincing the IT department to buy PowerMacs when they see these things in dells WITH included 19 inch monitor and office software.

Apple does have to do some catching up on the pro-side of things, there's no denying it anymore.

The G4 is a Better System, It's a Better Tower, it's a more efficient (not better or worse) processor, but the current shipping package is dated. We should be *AT LEAST* to 2 GHz G4s with DDR and 400 Bus by now. There's no hiding that a photoshop test or any other test on one of these new systems will smoke the current G4s.


----------



## Ricky (May 7, 2002)

> We should be *AT LEAST* to 2 GHz G4s with DDR and 400 Bus by now.


dricci, keep in mind that we only have 7 pipeline stages here.  It's a bit difficult to bring that to 2 GHz at this time..  

I agree that the bus speds and DDR RAM should be implemented though.


----------



## fryke (May 7, 2002)

Okay. So we defended OS 9 against any version of Windows despite the fact that it crashed upon us far too many times a week and the fact that cooperative multitasking really sucked. Well, now we have a real operating system and don't have to defend it anymore. Now, ever since Motorolas G4 desaster (500 MHz was top speed for about a YEAR!) we're defending the PowerPC platform with things like pipeline stages or tweaked Photoshop tests. Of *course* we're still actually more productive on Macintosh systems, but that's only partly because they're better. It's partly because we're used to the Macintosh way(s).

Apple *has* to consider moving entirely to X86. The G5, as expected, would have been a cool step forward. A few months ago. Do we know when they're going to appear in our Macs? We don't. All we hear are statements like 'The G4 still has a long life ahead...'.

Right now, I'm quite happy still. I don't *care* about at what frequency Pentium 4s or AMDs are running. I want to use a fast Mac. I'm just not productive or creative on a PC. But the longer Apple falls behind, the more this looks like a dead end. What is IBM doing? They're still developping G3 processors, albeit faster ones. But I don't WANT a 1 GHz G3 now, Mac OS X wants AltiVec.

If more pipeline stages are needed in order to push the G4 above 3 GHz, then do it, Motorola.


----------



## Ricky (May 7, 2002)

You're not getting the point, fryke.  The G4 is at dual 1 GHz.  Do the math.  Two supercomputer processors completely blow away a single Pentium 4, regardless of OS.

What I'm thinking is that Apple should release a higher pipeline processor for all the lamebrains out there who think that clock speed means everything, and push it up to 3 GHz.  Apple will make millions from all the suckers.  Get the G5 out for the people who know what they're doing.


----------



## dricci (May 7, 2002)

Dual processor 1ghz G4s do not mean they're faster than the new pentium. There's more in play, like the BUS. The new bus rating is super fast, so it'll probably make things A  LOT faster.


----------



## fryke (May 7, 2002)

Also, you *can* actually buy motherboards and use more than one fast AMD or Intel chip. For me the important thing is that I don't see vast improvements in Motorolas chips.

The original G4 (PPC 7400/7410) was flawed. They couldn't get it to run above 500 MHz. The first G4 that had more than 500 MHz (PPC 7440/7450) was already a new chip with more pipeline stages. This sheds a *really* bad light to the first design, right? Doesn't scale. At all. Now the new chip could be (finally!) taken to 1 GHz. Tests however showed that a 733 MHz 7450 chip was actually slower in many aspects than the original 7400 @ 500 MHz. Of course other parts of the PowerMacintosh G4 machines have been accelerated by now, too, so this doesn't matter that much anymore.

What we as Mac users should see is that there *are* options. IBM has high end processors like the Power 4 series. I don't know *that* much about the design of that processor, but it's the most similar sibling to the PPC platform. So maybe - if IBM can prove that they're willing to support Apple - this would be a good option.

There's AMD. They are *very* eager to have more support from OEMs. Apple would be one very big OEM partner, should Apple ever choose AMD over anything else. AMD also makes good notebook processors.

Mac OS X is a highly portable operating system. I'm not saying or supposing that Apple is right now actively thinking about a switch in any near future. I'm only appealing to Mac users that they should tend to keep their eyes open. While Apple may be a much more 'friendly' company than, say, Microsoft or Intel, even at Apple people are doing marketing the way others do, too. Things like saying the new iMac has 5 USB ports are plain lies if you apply common sense, as the two on the keyboard *only* apply when one of the three at the back of the iMac is already occupied. But it *does* sound good, right? 5 USB ports. But I digress.

However, I think Apple should try and reach out for a processor design that will take the Mac and Mac OS X to the next level. AMD and Intel's 32bit options are of the same generation of processor development as the PowerPC G3 & G4 processors. Apple should aim higher and try to get an actual *advantage* over the Wintel team. The G5 may or may not be a good option. My faith in Motorola has been attacked too often in the more recent past.


----------



## vanguard (May 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ricky _
> *You're not getting the point, fryke.  The G4 is at dual 1 GHz.  Do the math.  Two supercomputer processors completely blow away a single Pentium 4, regardless of OS.
> 
> What I'm thinking is that Apple should release a higher pipeline processor for all the lamebrains out there who think that clock speed means everything, and push it up to 3 GHz.  Apple will make millions from all the suckers.  Get the G5 out for the people who know what they're doing. *



I'm not so sure you're getting the point.  Bare with me here because I actually have an education in these matters.  A dual G4 can only help you if you have a task that can be done in a non-sequential manner.

I could write code for you but I'm not sure that it will help illustrate the point.  However, if you have something that is dependent on a previous calcuation you simply can not break it into threads and have them run in parallel.  Something like a photoshop filter is perfect for this.  Imagine a picture to be a two dimensional array.  (Like a spreadsheet)

Now let's say that you want to turn it on it's side.  It's an easy task to break your large two dimensional array into smaller grids and turn each one in parallel and then reassemble the picture.  

Now lets say you have a web page to render.  So much of what shows up on the screen is dependent on what else is on the screen.  You just can't make the rendering very parallel.

Now let's go back to our CPU comparision.  The primary reason that you can even mention a G4 in the same breath as a P4 is that the Altivec unit is better at parallel operations than SSE2.  However, for sequential operations (most of my tasks) the P4 is much better.  For operations that can be done sequentially, you have dual Athlons to compete with.

The truth is, the X86 guys are way ahead of  Motorola.  I think that everybody knows that Apple has picked an operation that maximizes their advantage (the photoshop bake off).  I suspect that Apple can't win any tests againsts today's X86 offerings no matter how they stack the deck.

I wish the OS was ported.  However, for me (as a desktop consumer) the OS is more important than the  CPU as long as the CPU is "good enough".  This iBook doesn't really cut it but Apple offers machines that do.

Vanguard

PS  I reread this and I realize that I come off as a jerk during the whole "education" thing.  Sorry about that.  I'm really a nice guy in person.


----------



## Ricky (May 7, 2002)

=\  Nah, I'm kinda being a jerk.  You guys really educated me on this, though.


----------



## mindbend (May 7, 2002)

I hate to bring this up again, but I have to point out a harsh reality. The megahertz myth is not entirely a myth at all. There are a few exceptions where indeed Altivec and DP G4s do quite nicely, but comments regarding the G4s blowing the P4s off the field are complete exaggerations at best.

I've tabulated several tests over the last year in virtually every type of application and in most cases there IS a fairly direct relationship between MHz among similar and dissimilar processors. As soon as I get my business site fully functional I'll be adding a subsite where users can provide their own test data based on files that I will provide so we're comparing apples to Apples (pun intended). As I said, there are exceptions, but believe me, a 2.5 MHz P4 is going to be freaking fast. There will be no blowing off the field by any G4.

As for comparing G4s to P4s, that's not REALLY  the comparison. The comparison is Photoshop, Lightwave, After Effects, Media Cleaner, etc. These are completely legitimate comparisons, because they are virtually identical apps on both platforms. You can blab all you want about DP, Altivec, Bus, DDR, etc., but if it takes twice as long to render a raytraced ping pong ball, that's an easy decision. (For the record, Lightwave really holds it own vs. a P4 and the DP is totally utilized-proof that if you bother to try, you can write really nice clean code for a Mac).

I should point out that I am a Mac freak and dispise Windows boxes. We have one (800 mhz P4) at work simply for a test box and for a cheaper alternative for ASP server testing, etc. I use Macs because when it's all said and done, I can get more done because I'm not jerking around with a crap interface and unsolvable weird bug infiltrations and font problems and all the rest. I've lost more money developing on PCs than I care to discuss.

But I'm no fool, if I can get a cheap 2.5 ghz box and use it as a rendering box (say for AE or Lightwave renders), that would make sense.

Even if you want to believe that G4s "blow away P4s", when the P4 is 2.5 times the MHz speed of the G4, that can make up for a lot of inefficiency. Here's to hoping Apple pulls another one out of  its butt.

Side note: at some point for many (most?) users, there is no functional difference between a 1 MHz and 10 Mhz machine if all you're doing is browsing, writing, emailing, a bit of web, a bit of Photoshop, some Quark, etc. This is where Apple is in a great position in terms of the "digital hub", the wonderful OS X as a whole and an extremely smart software/hardware integration strategy. That can make up for this whole MHz mess to some extent.


----------



## fryke (May 7, 2002)

I'm just in the process of updating my Pentium II box from RedHat 7.2 to RedHat 7.3. And I'm noticing something. I only use that machine for three things. 1) Watching TV. The tuner card was cheap and I have a 17" TFT monitor attached. Nice. 2) Surfing the web. I tend to work on my Mac and surf on the Linux box. 3) Testing my websites. I'm a designer and the Linux box is a nice testing bed, as the final sites will be running on a similar setup (Apache, Perl, PHP, MySQL).

What I noticed now is that while I *enjoy* using that machine for the tasks mentioned, I could never do creative work on it. Not in Windows XP (which I have installed on the machine, too, but I never run it), not in Linux. It was a cheap machine when I bought it new, upgrading it was cheap, Linux is free (I just downloaded the three ISOs and burned them onto CDs on my TiBook) and it makes a good secondary machine, because choice is good, if something doesn't run on Mac OS X I can try it on Linux or on Windows.

So, what do I want to say? I want to say that basically it doesn't matter (to me) that I could buy a 2.5 GHz PC. The 350 MHz PII still does everything I want it to do at a decent speed. Secondary machines don't need that much speed. *grin* ... But I always want my primary, creative workstation to be as fast as possible. Buying every revision of the TiBook is a bit too expensive for me (and others), but I'd want the increases to be bigger from revision to revision. 800 MHz to 500 MHz in what, 1.3 years? That's not enough, Apple. And I'm comparing Apples to Apples here. The top of the line TiBooks. If my Ti lasts me two years before I need/want/can afford to upgrade, I'm fine, but I'd want the Ti to be @ 2 GHz at MWSF/MWTO next year, rather than at 1.0 or 1.2 GHz. Not because I care where Dell's infamous notebooks will be, but because the difference between my old TiBook and my new TiBook should be BIG after two years.


----------



## satanicpoptart (May 7, 2002)

i think many of us have been harrased with things like "mac's suck", "oooo you have a mac..." and "i hate imacs!". now with all this bombardment from the masses we tend to get allitle defensive about our computer nationality, dont we?  when we say "g4 blows away p4" we are simply reminding ourselves that we belong to a very ilete group who are privilged to own computers that work well and are very fast.

personaly my mac has made me a smarter person, in 18 months of g4 i have gone from knowing nothing about computer and typing at 4 wpm to spending hours on end reading online and typing at 90 wpm... a know many a suberban boy with pc's who no little more then boiled cabage when it comes to anything beyond kazaa, aim, or word. thats my two sense on why owning a mac is better for you then owning a pc


----------



## RyanLang (May 7, 2002)

I TOTALLY agree with you. I was a pc boy since we replaced my commadore 64 with like a 386 or something, I forget.  When I got into macs, everything took off.  I have become so obsessed with macs and techonology.  I actually enjoy reading and learning now. I am a multimedia major, so I am around macs most of the day. I catch flack all the time for being a mac guy, I've actually lost friends because people say "all you talk about is macs and I don't care, pc's are just as good, blah blah blah". I never did anything but web surfing, mail, AIM and napster/games sometimes on my stupid wintel box. I get into just about all that I can with my mac and THATS why I have an apple stick on my bumper, THATS why apple is all I talk about, and THATS why I have keynotes on vhs on the day they are held!

P.S. - Pixar is  better than Mainframe, hehehehhehe


----------



## fryke (May 7, 2002)

Hmm... I wish I could *ever* see Steve Jobs' keynotes on TV. The QuickTime stream is always lagging a bit, although it's gotten better with time. Of course, seeing him live will beat that. Maybe I'll be at AppleExpo Paris this year... Can't they do it in Switzerland once? *grin*


----------



## Koelling (May 7, 2002)

Well said. I can't ever believe how little the average Wintel person knows about their computer. I was talking to a person who was downloading stuff from audiogalaxy and she didn't know how to get the songs off her ocmputer. She thought she needed to do it from the audiogalaxy website  

I asked her if she thought it was weird that a command issued from a website would be able to delete things from her hard drive and she didn't really understand what I was talking about. And don't go gender on me because she's in the college of Engineering so she should know *something* about her own computer.


----------



## simX (May 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ZeroAltitude _
> *You should take a look at the showdown between a dual 1Ghz G4 vs. the fastest Athlon or P4 on the block at
> 
> www.barefeats.com
> ...



One thing that I noticed from that website is that when they are testing the graphics card performance, they use a DP 800 G4 with a GeForce 3 while they only have a GeForce 4MX in the DP 1000 G4.  We all know that the 4MX is basically the 3MX with a new name.  Furthermore, they tested the AMD machine with a GeForce 4 Ti (not an MX), while they didn't test either the DP 800 or DP 1000 with a GF4 Ti.  This is flawed, at best, even if it doesn't change the overall harsh reality of things.  I will forgive this site slightly because the GF4 Ti isn't really available for Macs yet, because Apple has had some problems in shipping them, but they could've at least included the GF3 (not MX) in the DP 1000.

I just thought I'd make sure everyone knew of that.


Anyway, I have a couple things to say:

1) The places where Apple really needs to improve is system bus speed and the speed of the memory.  If Apple put DDR RAM into the G4s as well as a HyperTransport system bus, I think there would be a GREAT performance increase.  Hard drive speed could also help, as well as maybe making the hard drive interfaces to be internal FireWire which could help a bit.

2) It is Motorola's fault, not Apple's fault, for delivering "slow" microprocessors.  It's Motorola who is sitting on their butt doing nothing.  I truly believe that if Motorola puts up the PowerPC assets for sale and if Apple gobbles them up, Apple will be in a GREAT position to scale up the R&D on the G4 and G5 processors.  Furthermore, it would make them even more the "whole widget maker".  I am slowly accepting the harsh reality that G4s as a whole are falling slowly behind the competition in terms of raw speed, unfortunately.  I, too, am hoping that Apple/Motorola come up with a miracle, though.

3) I would also like to reiterate what other people have said.  It's more the operating system and the digital hub applications that make the Mac the Mac.  Minus all that, the Mac wouldn't be as fantastic as it is today.  That, and the design of their computers keeps me from switching over to PCs.  However, those are two VERY BIG things that will never be in PCs, hence I will never switch to a PC full-time.  If I need it, I'll use a PC for doing stuff, but you couldn't force me to use a PC.


----------



## bighairydog (May 8, 2002)

OK, so the MHz Myth failed as a selling point, how about this:

Intel can make a 50 Terahertz PXVII tomorrow for al I care. In fact, I might just get one to play Halo on. However, I think not many of us bought Macs for the speed  quite the opposite. In the end, productivity is defined by how long you spend messing around on the Internet. My Mac takes a nice long time to render a page compared to a Windows box, making the web less enticing, and me more productive. Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Bernie     )


----------



## fryke (May 8, 2002)

erhm, bad argument, i believe. 

my productivity advantage on the Mac is different. for example, i can almost draw a perfect circle in photoshop with a Mac mouse. on windows, i can't. this is not only because on windows most mouse drivers are 'turbocharged', but has to do with the graphics model, i believe. while i don't draw circles very often, i still need correct mouse behaviour for graphical work. also, i can work with files in the finder much better than on windows. and while windows xp is very, very 'active' in 'helping the user' (do you want a passport, or write a letter, or play a game?), the Mac OS is very inobstrusive in my tasks. well done, Apple.


----------



## serpicolugnut (May 8, 2002)

Look, no one here loves Macs more than I do... But I don't live my life in the reality distortion field...

Yes, the G4 is very competitive with the Pentium4. However, Apple is now so far behind in processor speed that I'm afraid the only logistical move for them is to either jump ship to another processor, or contract out someone like AMD to make fast PowerPCs built on Apple's specs.

Look at the speed disparities and the benchmarks. Show me a 3D application that renders faster on a dualGHZG4 than on a single 2.53ghzP4. Ditto for renders in After Effects. Web browsing, while much improved with browsers like Navigator, is still slower on a Mac than a PC. I'm not even sure that Photoshop (under OS X) still retains the speed advantage it previously had under OS 9.

Of course, people still buy Macs and still use Macs (even when there's a faster PC on the same desk) because of the elegance of the software. But if Apple continues to fall behind, raw performance numbers will not be able to be dismissed so easily in favor of elegance.

Apple is further inhibited by the current state of OS X, which generally takes hardware people considered fast under OS 9, and leaves it at hohum speeds under X (unless you are on a top of the line new PowerMac).

Some of these problems will be resolved with 10.2, but the hardware is still the crux. If Apple cant rule the roost with raw CPU performance, there are still other technologies they can adopt to make up for it. How about finally adding DDR RAM? Increase bus speeds? How about finally offering Mac users a Professional 3D Workstation Graphics Card?

I'm pulling for Apple all the way, but I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and lie to myself about what the other platform has to offer.

Apple simply has to do more with regard to performance.


----------



## fiznutz (May 8, 2002)

There is an old Formula 1 saying it goes something like.
Its not how fast you drive that wins the race! its how slow you can drive!


----------



## vanguard (May 8, 2002)

Here's a site that compares AMD performance vs. G4 performance in photoshop.

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/05_may/features/cw_aeshowdown.htm

It's not the newest x86 stuff but it still beats the G4 hands down.  I thought you guys might be interested.

Vanguard


----------



## MacLegacy (May 9, 2002)

we have to be realistic, long time I believed macs were more powerful than PCs, NO i'm NOT going to buy a PC but we have to be real and say Apple is lagging behind in several ways (hardware) compared to PCs now..

DDR RAM is missing
Bus Speed is slower
Mhz Myth is true and at the same time isn't
2.5 Ghz will beat the crap out of the most powerful G4 anytime now

By now we should have G5s and we should have at least 2Ghz for sure

It doesn't matter wheter or not we have multiprocessors, it won't give any advantage over most applications. 

Motorola might be to blame for not being fast enough to develop though..

Well, all that said, yes the g4 dp 1000 IS powerful but still not as fast as the latest PCs. I'm just saying Apple AND Motorola have to lower their lagging. 
Plz don't go flame me
I don't know much technical things and i am not sure if everything I said is true. I'm only 15 but care for Apple.
P.S: My english isn't perfect
i'm open to any comments but not to flaming


----------



## xaqintosh (May 9, 2002)

I must say that I have to agree, although Macs are better systems, Apple is definitely lagging in Processor/Bus speed and DDR ram. If Motorola or IBM is to blame, Apple should find a new Processor manufacturer (just not intel )

Just my 2¢ (I really hate that expression...)


----------



## phatsharpie (May 9, 2002)

The PowerPC G4 processor is a very powerful processor - especially when AltiVec is factored in. However, it is also true that when comparing raw performance power, the fastest available Athlon or Pentium 4 will beat the fastest available G4 hands down. Even though the "Megahertz Myth" is just that, a myth, the speed improvement in the Athlon and P4 architectures make up for their longer pipelines.

Now, considering that, we have to be realistic and recognize that Apple has limited resources. At present, it is focusing on refining and improving Mac OS X, which is a good thing. Since the beginning of its life, the Mac was never popular because of its raw performance rating, it's successful because it has the best OS around. Now after years of lagging behind in the OS department (no preemptive multitasking, no true multithreading, ineffective memory management), Apple once again has the best OS out there. Even though Apple makes most of their money through hardware sales, it is their OS that is their calling card. So I think it's a good thing that Mac OS X is the main focus right now. Apple simply does not have the resources to port to another platform (even if they wanted to). Also, if Apple makes such a drastic change, it's very possible that they would turn off developers who are porting software. Migrating to a new OS is difficult enough, but a new OS on a new chip? Not to mention the possible of retaliation from Microsoft from perceived threat!

Now I am not saying that Apple shouldn't increase the performance of the Mac, but Apple does have limited resources and it has to decide where to dedicate it. However, after the release of Jaguar, Apple probably has more resources to spare and evalute its actions in terms of hardware innovation.

Also, let's point out that some of the best workstation makers out there have some of the slowest chips around. SGI and Sun's highend workstations are barely 1GHz, and most of their workstations are at the 500MHz range.

I guess the thing to do would be evaluating your own personal experience. Is the Mac not performing what you are asking of it in an acceptable manner? Or are you asking for speed increase for the sake of bragging rights?

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## xaqintosh (May 9, 2002)

These are very good points, but the thing is that PC users will never switch to he mac platform when the mhz clock speeds are so low. I am currently Extremely happy with my 350mhz iMac with 128mb sdram, but that is not the point. I know that most Mac users aren't necessarily complaining about Apple's slowness in these issues, however If Apple wants to not only keep its current customers but also get new ones from the PC world, it needs to make some definite increases in speed and RAM.


----------



## phatsharpie (May 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by xaqintosh _*These are very good points, but the thing is that PC users will never switch to he mac platform when the mhz clock speeds are so low. I am currently Extremely happy with my 350mhz iMac with 128mb sdram, but that is not the point. I know that most Mac users aren't necessarily complaining about Apple's slowness in these issues, however If Apple wants to not only keep its current customers but also get new ones from the PC world, it needs to make some definite increases in speed and RAM. *



I see your point, but I don't fully agree with it. The truth is, a lot of people are switching to the Macs for the first time in their lives due to OS X. I am, in fact, one of them. I am a UNIX junkie and an enterprise application developer. I have never thought about owning a Mac, but as a former NeXTSTEP advocate, I jumped onto the Mac bandwagon as soon as the Mac OS X appeared. And I am certainly not alone, if you chat with the more "techie" users, such as longtime UNIX users, you'll see that many are considering Macs for the first time in their lives. In fact, a lot of developers are moving over to the Mac, and this is a good thing. These users are the ones who often come up with innovative software - in fact, Mosaic, the first web browser was developed on NeXTSTEP.

Now about speed... There was a poll on Slashdot.org yesterday regarding the speed of the processors in people's machines. This is a website dedicated to tech-heads, and the largest majority of responses are 1GHz and below! Raw performance is nice, but it becomes irrelevant at a certain point (for most computing task of course, not talking about rendering 3D in realtime here).

Also, most of the people who are buying the fastest P4 and Athlon chips are hardcore gamers, and there is no way in heck Apple can woo these people anyway, Macs simply is not the best gaming platform out there.

I can't tell you how much Mac OS X have shifted people's perception of the Mac in the tech/developer/UNIX world. It's so great to see people, who for years looked at Macs in disgust, seriously thinking about buying themselves a Mac (incidentally their major gripe is the one button mouse, but that is another story).


----------



## xaqintosh (May 9, 2002)

I also see your point, and it is absolutely great, but the majority of PC users are not Unix techies, unfortunately, and they don't realize that Macs are a viable alternative. We have to somehow convince them to renounce the Dark Side (windows & Microsoft, not Linux/Unix etc.)

As for the one-button mouse, I prefer two-button scroll wheel mice myself, and Apple should have an option of either one or two buttons.


----------



## dricci (May 9, 2002)

This isn't so much a concern for the major consumer convert yet, but we WILL loose pro users over it in time due to the higher bus speed and ram, which, like it or not, will give them more power for much less money than a high end power mac. Pro users don't care about interface, they learn 2 or 3 video or audio apps and that's all they need.

So unless Apple can get some higher bus speeds and better ram and of course, 2 - 3 ghz G4s/G5s out soon then we do stand to see some pros looking to upgrade from an older Power Mac looking at a Dell with a new P4.


----------



## fryke (May 9, 2002)

I consider myself a pro user although I'm not using either a video or an audio application, dricci. *smile*

I'm a professional graphics designer and a professional writer. For one job, even a C64 would be enough. I guess most of the time, my TiBook is waiting for my text input, idling away redrawing the various Quartz elements on my screen. The *other* job however requires some stuff of my computer. Photoshop is definitely power hungry, so is InDesign and so is Illustrator. That's also exactly where I *can't* work in a Windows environment, the only competitor environment. So basically I'm screwed if Apple doesn't leap forward, ain't I?

I'm very content with how my TiBook behaves and performs, how it works. I'll be even more glad with Mac OS X 10.2, I'm waiting for some bugs being fixed in all the Adobe applications and I'll buy a new PowerBook in January/February 2003, if all goes as planned.

Will the whatever clockspeed Sony notebook at that time have any appeal to me over the PowerBook? Yes. It will be faster. The battery time may suck, the keyboard as well as the iLink that doesn't feed power (bad idea, Sony). But it will definitely be faster. Windows XP will have some bugs fixed by then, too. But it'll still be a Windows notebook. Sony won't change that. I mean, yikes! I C*A*N*N*O*T get any graphical work done there. I've *teached* Photoshop on Windows, and my students learned some thing, sure. But I'll choose the TiBook even when it'll just be at right about 1 GHz. But I won't actually *like* the fact that it'll be that much slower.

Apple: We're staying with you. We're bearing with you. We're waiting for you. We want you to lead. We thought, the PowerPC platform was clearly the better choice, back when you made the switch from 68K processors.

Apple... OS: Great! Machine design: Insanely great! Innovations in software: Phantastic! And you also didn't forget about the fun of computing! But, and I guess you know it, the processors you're using SUCK performance-wise, compared to the competition.

Btw. Apple should NOT release mice with more than one button. There are enough companies selling nice mice, and actually Apple was *right* about the one-button mouse from the beginning.


----------



## Matrix Agent (May 9, 2002)

I don't want to seem accusatory, but this discussion begs the question:

If dual 1.75Ghz G5's w/ *real* 533Mhz bus and DDR came out tomorrow, would you all be lauding the greatness of the mac system as much and saying how is makes you a better creative professional, or would you let out a big collective laugh at the PC world?

I would laugh. I'm just as guilty as the rest. When OS 9 sucked, I said that it was made up for by it's friendly GUI. When the G4 sucked I explained pipeline stages photoshop bakeoffs. Now, when the G4's are sucking again, we discuss how much better OS X is than any XP crap.

The GUI, the pipeline and XP sucking are all valid points, but we can let these excuses get in the way of taking an objective view of the macintosh platform. Without informed decisions on the current state of mac affairs, Apple risks falling into a state of complacency, because it thinks its users no longer care about performance.

Apple must understand that superior industrial design and software will not create the perfect platform.

Apple is doing a great job, but they are risking marginialization if the performace gap widens much more.

Comments?


----------



## xaqintosh (May 9, 2002)

The number of buttons on the mouse is debatable. I think Apple should have one button mouse as the default, but have an option on their website to order a Logitech type mouse instead, for those users whoa re so inclined to have right-click (I actually like having a right-click option on a mouse, contextual menus are great)

BTW, sorry for getting somewhat off of the subject

As for the pentium vs. PPC issue:
 As I have said before, Apple has great some great stuff, but in our world, mhz really *do* matter, and there is no getting past that. Until Apple (IBM/Motorola) start making better(as in faster) processors, they aren't going to succeed. Also, They need to incorporate DDR ram and faster Bus speeds. I remember reading a post from someone saying something like "If Apple doesn't boost their speed soon, Intel's bus speeds will be as high as Apple's Clock speed" unfortunately, this might be true


----------



## fryke (May 9, 2002)

That's gonna take a while. Real bus speed is still 133 MHz, don't be fooled by the number. But you're right all the same, xaqintosh. Matrix Agent: Didn't I say the exact same thing in other words?

And btw. this is one of the threads where discussions start to overleap. People who post now weren't there at the beginning and haven't read the posts. Most of the things have already been said, so maybe it should be locked by the creator.  *smile*


----------



## Matrix Agent (May 9, 2002)

I'm glad we agree fryke! Zealots will be the death of Apple. Loyal fans, sure, but don't deny reality.


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (May 9, 2002)

...This is an interesting Thread to read, coming from an XP User, with no Mac ( Sulks ) and an Athlon CPU!  

<< Oh, and Mice ...

My Personal opinion is that you swallow your pride (Donate Dollars to the DEMON ! Mu hahaha! ), and ALL Buy Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer's! (hehe!) ... I Love Mine!!!  

NeYo


----------



## fryke (May 9, 2002)

I'm actually using a Microsoft IntelliMouse Optical, although I'm defending one button mice at Apple. I think it would be very, very inconsistent if Apple would start selling mice with more buttons, be it as a choice or 'at all'. I also think mice and monitors should live longer than CPUs, which is of course wrong in a notebook like my TiBook.


----------



## Lazarus18 (May 9, 2002)

OK, so can we all agree on the RAM and bus speed needs? I think so. 

I think the real problem here is not MHz, but the chip architecture. And I am quite afraid of the future frankly. 

I am no tech head and couldn't explain much past pipeline stages, but I think the advantage of the PPC design philosophy is quickly eroding, and soon will be gone altogether. The RISC chip was a fine idea, and at the beginning made significant gains over CISC chips that Intel was making. But over time the line is blurred. There are elements of RISC in x86 chips now, and the sheer cycle speed of those chips makes any advantage of how efficient a chip is increasingly meaningless. I have a 400 MHz G3 powerbook and a 550 MHz AMD K6-III+ both running Linux. The PB is noticeably faster than the K6. So it can easily makes up a 150 MHz gap. However, given a 2.5 GHz vs 1GHz gap... you just can't make that up. 

So why am I afraid? 

A) Apple has hitched its wagon to Motorola. Motorola is basically inept. Sorry to anyone who may work there, but I feel it's true. Their whole company structure is stoic and doomed. My father-in-law worked in R&D there (cell phones, not CPUs). They managed to let a firm grasp on the market slip away to Nokia because they would not or could not innovate and understand what the market wanted. They have a basic attitude of "this is how we do things, it worked in the past, it will continue to do so." They also treat their R&D guys like dog crap (at least on my father-in-law's teams, and his associates in other locales had basically the same experiences). I really don't think Motorola has what it takes to innovate on the PPC, and I don't think the PPC has any inherent design advantages over the x86 anymore.

B) I don't know if Steve Jobs has the humility to admit PPC was a mistake. Well, maybe not originally, but now it's not up to par. Forgive my lack of knowledge in Apple history, I don't know if Jobs was still on board when the decision was made to jump to PPC. But at the least I know that he has raved about the G4, and the prospects of the PPC. Now I know it's part of his job to rave about anything Mac, but I question whether or not he would endorse such a radical change if the bottom line is not desperate. If Apple were sinking fast, such drastic measures might be more palatable. Plus, Steve is in love with the notion of quiet computers, and PPCs are lower energy/lower heat CPUs. I think Steve would make this a bigger deal in an arrangement with AMD than it deserves to be (MHO). 

C) The shock to the system would be huge. All those aps, worthless. People would be faced with rebuying new versions to run on a new architecture. If Apple keeps things closed, then a new AMD based chip would mean buying a new AMD based Mac and then all your software (unless they cook up another emulation scheme). Given the prospect of such a financial load, I think many people may think "I've got to buy a new PC that runs on an AMD chip, why not just buy this one here from Dell (or whoever)?" 

To end this rant, I'll give my solution. (Are you ready? I bet you can't wait, right?) Apple needs to hook up with AMD. AMD makes great chips. But the timing needs to be right. If they basically make an x86 version of OSX, they lose a ton of money on hardware since everyone will run it on an el cheapo Dell. They would have to change their business model and become more Microsoft-esque. They could conceivably get AMD to make a chip that is different enough that the OS won't run on standard x86 hardware. But the timing of all this is the 64 vs 32 bit OS. Theoretically the G5 might be able to do both. This would make for a smooth transition. But anyway you slice it it's going to be a rough transition anyway. There's the chance to make such a huge leap, and give people a tangible reason as to why it's worth the cost. Squeeze all the life you can out of the PPC, get a G5 out now, and as soon as you can get together with AMD and make a 64 bit chip that runs in top of the line Macs. 

OK, so brevity is not my strong suit.


----------



## phatsharpie (May 9, 2002)

Before Apple does something so drastic as embracing the x86 architecture, they have a much better migration option... The IBM POWER4 architecture. It's binary compatible with the PowerPC code, it's 64bit, and it's blazing fast. I don't think its cost is too outrageous either, considering IBM is slowly putting it into their entry and mid level servers. Unfortunately it doesn't have AltiVec...

Here is an excerpt from the Colorado Engineer Magazine about it...

---

IBM Power4

The IBM Power4 chip will be the successor to its current Power3 chip. IBM used to work with Motorola on producing the PowerPC chips that Apple uses in its computers. However, there was a falling out, and Motorola and IBM went their separate ways. Apple is currently using Motorola chips, but the PowerPC chips that IBM is currently manufacturing for its enterprise servers are still compatible with Apple's architecture.

The Power4 chips will, like the Hammer series, feature two processor cores on one chip. However, unlike the Hammer series, IBM has decided to take this a step further and has designed a schematic for a multi-chip module. The multi-chip module couples four Power4 dice on a single module for a very efficient 8-way symmetric multiprocessing system.

The actual specifications of the Power4 are quite impressive. IBM claims that the chip core can run in excess of 1GHz, but taking into account the new manufacturing process with which the Power4 will be made, it will probably be capable of speeds up to 1.5GHz. The Power4 is also equipped with a 144 GB/sec L2 cache bus and a peak memory bandwidth of 8 GB/sec.

The Power4 chip is a force to be reckoned with. Highly scalable, fast and designed by IBM, this chip is sure to be something special. Moreover, the familiar RISC architecture of the Power4 chip will make both software and hardware compatibility a non-issue. Unfortunately, the success of the Power4 may face a downfall in IBM's tendency to shy away from marketing individual products. So, there is a good chance that the chip will only be used in its enterprise servers.


----------



## Lazarus18 (May 9, 2002)

Yeah, that sounds good. Do that.  

Seriously though, I agree that there are steps that could be done before going x86. I really see Apple moving to x86 as a last gasp effort. If they're going bankrupt again, I'd bet they would drop an x86 OSX on the world to see if they couldn't reinvent themselves as a software company. 

The Power4 would be good. Letting AMD take over Motorola's role in the Apple/IBM/Motorola arrangement sounds real good too. Like I said, I just don't think Motorola can push the PPC to do what it needs for Apple. I have far more faith in what AMD could do with the technology.


----------



## Nummi_G4 (May 10, 2002)

Well... what about Motorola's Apolo chips coming out?  Are they just updated G4s ???


----------



## fryke (May 10, 2002)

Yes, Apollos are just updated G4 chips. 7460 and 7500 are evolutionary developments of the original 7400 and the more recent 7450 chips that Apple uses in PowerMacintosh G4 computers.

AIM (Apple, IBM, Motorola - not the chat application) have talked about using 4-way processor cores on one processor module for a long time. The G4 was once rumoured to implement this - it did not. Now the G5 (PowerPC 8500) is rumoured to implement it.

Whatever: Apple needs both faster processors and a development roadmap that promises (and DELIVERS) more.


----------



## xaqintosh (May 10, 2002)

I'm just wondering:

Would Apple be able (money-wise) to actually _buy_ Motorola? Or maybe just Motorola's Processor division?

If Apple could do that, then _they_ would be in charge, and I'm sure they would be able to get better processors and DDR ram and Faster Bus Speeds. It would be Great because Apple would be in full control of itself.

(Just an Idea)


----------



## Matrix Agent (May 10, 2002)

You can buy a lot with four billion dollars...but as far as moto's willingness to let go of their proc unit, who knows?

Even if Apple was able to buy the rights to the PPC and altivec, what would they do with it? Who would run the R&D? At first you might say the people who originally worked for moto, but how do we know that they are even competent.

It could be bad employees, it could be bad funding, it could be bueracracy. Its a big mess. But, by no means should OS X ever be ported to x86. That would be a disaster on a completely different level than to have the press backlash of Apple falling a whole 2Ghz behind the masters of deception. (intel)


----------



## RacerX (May 10, 2002)

First, any AMD solution is basically pointless, they are not in command of the x86 market, so why would moving to them in particular be of any advantage (versus any of the other chip makers out there)?

I personally think that the correct course of action is a combination of phatsharpie's and xaqintosh's ideas. We should move to IBM, but we should buy out the rights to AltiVec before leaving Motorola (IBM makes G4s, just not with Motorola's AltiVec included). IBM _is_ a computer company, and Motorola is not (and that should make all the difference). IBM uses their own products, so they have good reason to want to improve them. I am worried that the last line of products using IBM chips (the iBooks) may not be using them much longer, and I would not want a relationship between Apple and IBM to go cold at a time when the future of Motorola is so questionable. IBM could put out a 1.5+ GHz G3 type chip today if their biggest customer was Apple and not the imbedded chip market, but Apple would not buy any G3 with higher clock speed than the current G4 (IBM had 700+ MHz G3s, but Apple would only buy them at 500 MHz a few years ago because Motorola couldn't get past 500 MHz with their version of the G4*). The only real short coming of the G3 series is the cache which keeps it from working nicely in multiprocessor systems. 

In the short term IBM could make G4s with Apple licensing the AltiVec to them (which would give us a very quick speed boost), but in the long run we should flow with IBM's R&D and take full advantage of what ever they come up with. As has been pointed out the POWER3 and POWER4 series (both based on the architecture of the 604 series, the same as the G4 series) are both great chips and are being used in IBM's servers and workstations running AIX. Moving to POWER3 now (it is optimized for 32-bit code) and later the POWER4 (the 64-bit version) would be safe moves at this time.


_* NOTE: IBM was able to produce G4s at 600+ MHz when Motorola was unable to supply Apple with 500 MHz chips when the G4 series was first released._


----------



## phatsharpie (May 10, 2002)

Thanks RacerX, I was hoping to see your input on this topic. You're really knowledgable in this area, so it's nice to see you agree (mostly) with my assessment. I think the POWERx architecture would be great for the Mac, they can finally be in the same league as other UNIX workstations from SGI and Sun. Buying out the AltiVec rights from Motorola would be a good thing too. But is AltiVec really necessary on the POWERx platform? I don't really know, so just wondering. To me, Apple's offloading of Quartz onto the GPU instead of optimizing it using the AltiVec shows that they are moving away from tying themselves to the AltiVec core.


----------



## Krevinek (May 10, 2002)

I think Apple has a better shot trying to make the G5 work on the desktop than moving to a completely incompatible arch so quickly after moving to a new OS. 

The G5 was supposed to address some of the issues currently plaguing the G4 arch, such as lack of support for next-gen RAM like DDR/RAMBUS (IIRC), and HyperTransport is still a ways off.

Really, the big things going for the G4 right now is that it is smaller, cooler, and less power-hungry. To increase performance, it would have to give up those things going for it. Intel/AMD gave up on trying to make an efficient processor (in waste energy/heat) to eek out a little bit of performance. Moto/Apple appear to be taking the smaller/cooler route while they work out issues of moving the G5 to a desktop platform. IIRC, Apple was supposed to have a hand in the G5 designs, plus there was the fact that the 256-bit Altivec II wasn't ready by Moto's announcement. 256-bit Altivec would be required or it will severely cripple the G5 down the road only supporting 2 64-bit chunks. Altivec needs to continue offering 4 chunks at the chip's optimal bitsize, or it will just lose any edge Altivec can give in OS X as it is.

Not fun, is it?


----------



## amo (May 10, 2002)

anyone know what kind of contract/agreement Apple is currently in with Motorola?


----------



## FrgMstr (May 10, 2002)

Thought id make a celebrity appearance 

Ive said it before and ill  say it again, Apple will one day, dont know when but one day jump on the AMD clawhammer/ sledgehammer bandwagon.


----------



## Lazarus18 (May 10, 2002)

That's a good question, which I hope someone knows the answer to. Hopefully it's about up  . 

I think it's a good point that IBM would use their own product in a similar capacity to Apple, and that this is a good thing. Motorola uses the PPC as an embedded systems chip, so lo and behold they make very cool running low energy chips that aren't terribly fast. 

As to Apple doing all of this inhouse by buying Motorola's processor department? Uh... I think that's a bad idea. My one gazillionth ownership of the company would have to nix that, I think that's financial disaster. You'd be talking about sinking a sizeable amount of that 4 billion reserve to basically start a whole new company in a very volatile industry. 

Buying Altivec on the other hand seems more reasonable, and more in line with what Apple has done in the past, investing a large sum to have a say in how key technologies are developed. 

I still think AMD could do a good job with the PPC chip if they had an interest in buying out Motorola's role in AIM. But easiest would be to just hitch our wagon to IBM instead of Motorola. 

Motorola has shown that they can't even meet demand for the slow chips they make, let alone get them up to speed. I just hope that Appple is well aware of the problem, and is seeking change. Are there any solid indications to indicate that they might be leaning away from Motorola, or just heresy?


----------



## vanguard (May 11, 2002)

The upside of moving to AMD instead of Intel is that they have consumer level (as opposed to server level) SMP chips.

As far as I know, if you want Intel SMP you need either PIII or Xeons.

Also, AMD has a consumer friendly direction with their sledgehammer/clawhammer stuff.  Intel seems more focused on the Itanium.

Still, the nice thing about Intel is their long history of leading the market.  We wouldn't want AMD to be the next Motorola (smaller company without the R&D to keep pace).

As for the Power4, what's it's advatage?  It doesn't have altivec which is a HUGE loss.  I don't that it's lack of altivec has received the attention it deserves in this thread.  Maybe it's easy to add in but I sort of doubt it.  Do you really want to stand still for a year while IBM adds altivec to a chip that's similar to a G4?  That would suck.  A year from now we'll be at 1.5 ghz.  That doesn't excite me.

I'd vote for a port to x86.  That way we can work with the industry leaders.

Vanguard


----------



## dricci (May 11, 2002)

x86 archetecture sucks. And AMD is hurting the industry with their sledgehamer or whatever they're calling it by keeping so much backwards compatability stuff. It still supports 16 Bit! This may sound "good" for consumers, but in the long run it just slows progress down because it has to be developed in a way to keep it 64 bit but also contain backwards compatability for 16 bit and DOS and stuff!

The Intel Itanium is 64 bit only, no backwards compatability, so it can progress faster and doesn't need to hang on to old legacy support.

Another vote for the move to Power3 and Power4 from IBM, although having to recompile everything would suck. Maybe a Power4 chip as the main chip and a G3 hidden somewhere on the MoBo that can run older non-Power4 compiled apps for compatabiliy until they're re-compiled by the developers? Hmm..


----------



## phatsharpie (May 11, 2002)

Why should the lack of AltiVec dismisses the POWER4 chip? From Apple's website, the G4's theoretical peak performance is 5.2 gigaflops, which is including the performance of the AltiVec unit. In comparison, a single POWER4 processor, which does not have AltiVec, can achieve 5 gigaflops of peak performance. Also, apps do not have to be written to take advantage of a vector processing unit. You'll see speed improvements across the board. Other advantages, the G4 is stuck at a 133MHz front side bus, the POWER4 uses 500MHz front side bus. Each POWER4 processor is multicore, meaning SMP processing without having to use multiple processors! The  POWER4 is shipping at 1GHz speed now, using .18 technology, when it moves to .13 technology, it'll hit 2GHz. Also, binary compatibility with the PowerPC binary meaning minal compatibility issues between OS, apps, and hardware.

The POWER4 chip and the G4 are really in different leagues. The POWER4 is a 64bit workstation and server level processor that delivers unbeliveable performance. The POWER4 chip has been widely praised and is very well received in the tech world. With its performance, the lack of AltiVec is a non-issue.

Since Apple is going after the UNIX market with a vengence, it needs to have a processor architecture that can compete, and the POWER4 is just such an architecture.


----------



## RacerX (May 11, 2002)

> _by vanguard_
> *As for the Power4, what's it's advatage? It doesn't have altivec which is a HUGE loss. I don't that it's lack of altivec has received the attention it deserves in this thread. Maybe it's easy to add in but I sort of doubt it. Do you really want to stand still for a year while IBM adds altivec to a chip that's similar to a G4? That would suck. A year from now we'll be at 1.5 ghz. That doesn't excite me.*



What is the POWER4's advantage? Hm, lets see, how about we look at the POWER4 at 1.3 GHz (with 128 MB of L3 cache). As I recall, it had a SPECint2000 of 800+ and a SPECfp2000 of 1200+. Some how not having the AltiVec doesn't seem like a _HUGE_ loss to me. The real trick is getting IBM to make enough of them to lower the price on these gems (IBM sells systems with them at $250,000+).

The point of all this is to get IBM to want to make very fast low cost chips for workstations. As it stands currently, IBM uses 604e, POWER3 and POWER3-II for their high end workstations, and POWER3-II upto POWER4 for their servers. Apple wouldn't buy G4s without AltiVec attached, so IBM stopped making them, and their G3 series is aimed at the embedded market more than the desktop/workstation market (then again, you can't use it for multiprocessor systems, so why would they use G3s themselves).

Remember that IBM is _not_ Motorola, and they have not had any of the same types of production problems that Motorola has had in the past (which kept the G4 at 500 MHz for so long).


----------



## Nummi_G4 (May 12, 2002)

I am sorry... i do not know anything about this stuff.  But I have a question:  Why is Moto falling behind so much?  why can't that crank out more mhz?  WTF is wrong with them?


----------



## fryke (May 12, 2002)

(Ignoring the last post.)

1. Apple is aware of Motorola's problems.
2. IBM is aware of Motorola's problems.
3. Apple is a huge fan of AltiVec.
4. Motorola and AMD are working together to some extent.
5. The G5 processor is being finalized as we speak.
6. Jaguar is said to be released 'late summer'.

If all goes well, I'd say Motorola will let IBM produce a massive G5 desktop processor rollout this summer. Apple machines will be released alongside Jaguar.

The question will be whether this will be too little, too late.


----------

