2.53GHz Pentium

Originally posted by designer
2.53GHz Pentium with 533 megahertz bus speed has been released.

Where is my G5!!!!!!!

:confused:
Click to expand...

Good for you!

So tell me, what would you use it for??? :rolleyes:
 
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.
 
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. :mad:
 
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 :eek:)
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
We should be *AT LEAST* to 2 GHz G4s with DDR and 400 Bus by now.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top