Dual 1Ghz G4 PowerMac With Extra Yummy 875
A huge number of readers submitted the new
Dual Ghz Power Mac that
Apple has announced. Includes a Geforce 4 and assorted other bells and
whistles that will ring and blow for the Mac Junkie. They start
at $3k and seriously make me want a Mac.
Not bad, for starters (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the chipset hasn't been updated yet (ergo no ATA100 or DDR support yet), it's the same FireWire (meaning the newer high-speed FireWire isn't ready for Prime Time yet), and the top-end speed isn't quite as fast as I had hoped/expected. I was thinking the speeds would be more like 933/1000/dual 1133 this time out.
But all in all, it's a good short-term move assuming the G5 is available in the next couple of months. But despite the specs, it reminds me of the original "Yikes!" G4 towers, which were just Yosemite towers tweaked for a G4 to hold the line while Apple got more of the high-speed chips that their real G4 was designed for. Yikes only lasted a few months before the Sawtooth version took over.
This is, I hope, pretty much the same thing.
Re:3k or 3 PCs? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't apply to Apples (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Second hand Apple market is about 1/20th the size of the second hand PC market therefore supply is lower, price is higher.
2) Everybody and their mother sells PC components but there are relatively few Apple resellers and pretty much no Apple component sellers.
2) Prices on Ebay are incredibly inflated for everything. I seen items like digital cameras go for $400 when I could buy the same camera from Best Buy for $360 and online for $300.
nice (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been using mostly PCs and Sun workstations, but these new Macs with OS X actually make me reconsider... the pricetag is ok I guess, the OS is solid (unix-based), PPC is a clean architecture, and it could be used by my mom while I can run all the GNU goodies I want.
Now if they have standard connectors for the display etc. (unlike some older models), it's definitely an option. That "superdrive" starts making DVDs interesting, even though 'til now I boycott them on principle (region code, CSS) - CDs are getting a bit limiting in size...
Oh well before I get serious about replacing my current setup, the G5 will be available...
Re:Moore's Law in effect? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't need the latest and greatest, last year's computers can be pretty cheap and extremely functional.
Geforce 4 MX? (Score:2, Insightful)
Some power... (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple really needs to ramp up their speed--and since most people were expecting 1.2 Ghz G5 machines, this upgrade will come as a dissapointment to many.
The new machines also use PC-133 SDRAM, which is, to say the least, sad.
There are some nice points about the new macs, though. Apple seems to have greatly improved the interior architecture [apple.com] of the machines, enabling the PCI bus to run at 215MBps instead of 133MBps, and giving more dedicated bandwidth to hard drives et ect. The new machines also feature an AGP 4x slot, whereas (to the best of my recollection) the older PowerMacs only had AGP 2x. The GeForce 4 MX is nice, of course, though until I see some real benchmarks comparing it to Radeon 8500 and the high-end older GeForce 3 cards, I won't be impressed.
Well, here are the total specs [apple.com] of the new machines.
My overall impression is "Nice, but not nice enough."
I, for one, will wait for the G5 to buy a new mac. MacWorld New York, anyone?
Macs are comming back (sort of) (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortanately for us, the mainstay of application toolkit consists of programs designed exclusively for Windows. On the background side, we have confugured our network services exlcusively around linux servers. Sure, maybe OSX is capable of handling such things in the near future, maybe even now; I really don't need a (reasonably) expensive Apple computer to the work an old PII can.
On a more positive side, I have seen the grass on the other side of the fence. My first subject revolves around a family, who for several years used windows. First 95, then 98 then ME. This family had so many issues with their computer system, and no idea how to correct them that they just went out and bought an iMac because "everything worked." Now they want iPod's, iBooks, and the likes because Apple products work both for those without an inkling of knowledge as well as those who know exactly what they're doing.
It is also my opinion that the best applications for sound recording (please read audio, not MIDI sequncing, not waveform generation ala Max/MSP,) but straight recording are available only for the PC (Samplitude 2496 and Sequoia.) As always you are free to disagree. Our studio uses such software exclusively, but a young woman asked us for advice on buying her first computer. We suggested an Athlon-based PC and an inexpensive but high quality recording card (M-Audio, Echoaudio, Terratek etc.) So she buys a Socket 423 P4, with a SoundBlaster live. Needless to say things didn't work right from the start. The system came preloaded with ME, and when we helped her switch to 2K for stabilitie's sake, Dell informed us the warranty was void without the original OS supplied with the system. On top of that this woman's knowledge of computers was non-existent (not necessarily a bad thing, just a drawback.) She is the type of demographic for which the Macintosh is perfect, and it was silly of us to recommned otherwise because we've been back there setting up the computer on many occasions.
Apple's current efforts to provide not just an alternative but a viable one should be applauded. Though Apple is, in business models, equaly monopolistic as
Re:Dual Processors and Software (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't believe it. And most apps on Linux or solaris don't benifit from a 2nd processor either.
Re:Geforce 4 MX? (Score:2, Insightful)
The audience (Score:3, Insightful)
You realize that Apple has this new OS called OS X, right? It's built around the mach kernel and BSD. It's fast, it's stable, and you can compile tons of *NIX goodies to run on it. You can also deploy WebObjects apps, and the GUI admin tools make things easier for those who are new to operating a server. It might not rule the server world, but OS X Server has been well reviewed, and will certainly steal back marketshare in K-12, university, and creative environments where NT and its derivatives had made inroads.
The Mac is now finally a serious Java development platform. You can use all manner of GNU tools on the Mac. As for production, in the worlds of video production, audio production, web production, and print production, the Mac has always been very strong. With OS X, Apple will be able to regain a firm lead in these areas.
As more and more apps are ported to OS X, and as more brand-new Cocoa apps are written, the platform will become even more attractive to creative industries. Dual-processor machines running OS X are a godsend to people using memory-intensive apps like Illustrator and Final Cut Pro.
Macs have always been labeled as "cute", particularly after the release of the initial iMac four years ago. But Apple has changed its ways to a large degree. Sure, they make eye-catching products that are easy to use, but they're also now transitioning to a truly powerful OS that plays very well with UNIX, Linux, and even Windows.
Re:I predict that... (Score:4, Insightful)
The GeForce4 MX seems to be pretty seriously crippled (like the GeForce 2MX before it). On this [apple.com] page you can see that it pulls in about 115 fps at 1024x768. Compare that with this [tomshardware.com] page which shows a GF3 Ti500 doing 190fps under similar circumstances.
I'm not saying that it's all that bad, and the graphics performance is very nice indeed, but the GeForce4 moniker might be a bit misleading to people who might presume it's the next generation: That little MX designation is a clue that it isn't necessarily a step up from a GeForce 3.
All the more reason to consign PPC to the embedded (Score:2, Insightful)
You can get 'em cheaper than $3k... (Score:2, Insightful)
What about apple and freebsd/linux (Score:2, Insightful)
Seany
Enough! (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) "I could build a comparable Athlon box for way less money."
Yes, you probably could. But Apple is a premium brand. Think Sony. You do pay extra for an integrated software-hardware package, good industrial design, 90 days free tech support, etc. You may not need or want these things but some people do. In particular, Apple's ease of use is somewhat predicated on the OS knowing exactly what hardware configuration to expect, so the user doesn't have to mess around with device drivers and kernel extensions.
(2) "I can't believe Macs still have only a one-button mouse. What a bunch of morons. When will they get with the program?"
Buy a Mac. Then spend $15 and buy a 2-button scroll-wheel mouse. You won't have to install anything because OS X already supports it, context menus and all. My Mac's mouse has 4 buttons and a wheel. Macs come with a 1-button mouse for good reasons, like ease of use for first-time or novice users and purity of the original mouse metaphor (point at things and click on them). There are actually users out there (including PC users) who find the second button confusing and may not know what to do with it.
Sorry for the lengthy rant. But I just keep seeing these comments over and over again, and they miss the point.
Would probably be NY'02 (Score:2, Insightful)
Still if you want an Apple, the time has NEVER been better.
Better still - if you want a kickass computer the time has never been better to buy Apple.
-Nex
Re:Try to build a comparable Dell for $3000 (Score:2, Insightful)
First, a _SINGLE_ XEON 2.0Ghz is probably 20-30% faster then a dual 1Ghz G4 when running on a server, for which it was designed.
Also, for real comparison, compare with an Athlon 2000+ (probably at LEAST as fast as the dual 1Gghz G4 except in photoshop). You always loose speed in SMP, so a 2Ghz G4 (if one existed) would easily outperform a dual 1Ghz. Also, Dell sucks. They do not offer Athlons. Go to Compaq (older models suck but the newer ones are good) and get a very nice config for $1975:
- AthlonXP 2000+
- 512MB DDR SDRAM (twice as fast as the ram in the G4)
- 80GB 7200RPM Drive
- "SuperDrive" equiv DVD/CD-R
- Geforce 3 ti500 w TV/Out (Geforce4MX="Budget high end card" and will probably retail less then a GF3Ti500 [MX is Nvidias Budjet designation])
- XP Home (a better comparison to OS X)
- Firewire & USB (with Movie Studio)
- Lexmarx COLOR PRINTER (no printer with the G4)
- JBL speakers w/Subwoofer (G4 doesn't come with speakers)
Again: $1975!
When it comes to a slick package that Just Works right out of the box for your average consumer, there's the iMac. When you need portable elegance, there's the iBook or the Titanium Powerbook. When it comes to a gaming and multimedia performance powerhouse, there's the Athlon PC for 2/3rd the price.
Re:Doesn't apply to Apples (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Less and less BTO - bums me out (Score:2, Insightful)
-ADC is only there because it simplifies things for people who buy apple displays. Instead of three cables you have one. If you dont want apple displays buy a ADC-DVI adapter for 30 bucks and use a 3rd party display. Most (good) flat panels I've seen have both DVI and SVGA inputs. Buy 2 and hook one into the SVGA port on the card and the second into the DVI adapter and ADC port. Was that hard?
-If you realy want I belive Matrox makes a mac AGP card that has dual DVI out the back and you could replace the GF4MX with that.
-Apple displays require power from the machine. If you want to hook them up to DVI you need the Dr. Bott adapter. its about $150.
-If you want more monitors buy a pci mac radeon 7000. $125.
-VGA-DVI is expensive. This is because it is an analog to digital converter. its about $400. Except I can't think of a good reason to buy one if you have a new machine or one with pci slots.
-Yes, having "dual display" with out support for two apple brand displays is dumb. It is not a show stopper. You can work around it, and its cheaper if you use non-apple displays.
-Yes the cheaper way is "Ugly" thats why its cheaper. Duh.
HB
Re:Geforce 4 MX? (Score:1, Insightful)
NV17/GeForce4 MX is not the renaming of any existing product. (It is not just the mobile part either)
NV17 is a new part and will be a very impressive complement to any other GPUs that are released in the near future.
As for its performance just barely beating a GeForce3 Ti 500 (using Apple's or whomever's numbers) well... Wouldn't you like something in the price range of the current MX graphics cards that beat the most expensive GF3 Ti 500???
A heck of a lot more people buy $199 graphics cards than buy $399 ones.
Best Audio Recording Software for PC? (Score:3, Insightful)
Um.... Pro Tools? Pretty much considered the industry standard for digital audio workstations?
And if you want, Cubasis, Digital Performer, PEAK's apps, and a whole host of others. To be fair, I've never used Sequoia or Samplitude. But there are plenty of quite serviceable audio recording solutions for the Mac.
Pretty much impossible to compare (Score:1, Insightful)
The problem is, it's pretty much impossible to compare them on any reasonable level to PCs.
1. In order to get dual processors from a mainstream PC maker, you have to get a workstation-class machine, which just plain cost far more than pretty-much equivalent non-workstations. Pentium 4 Xeons, for example, are pretty much identical to Pentium 4 - they don't even have more cache or anything.
2. At this point, it's pretty much impossible to compare performance. Macs can kick ass for specific tasks that are optimized for them; however, they're bottlenecked for others. I read a comparison of 500MHz machines (ie. same clock speed Pentium II and G3 or G4) several years ago that found them equivalent. It totally depends on what you intent to with them - especially since many apps aren't optimized for Macs. (For instance, compare Mac Quake III framerates to PCs; PCs are much higher, even with the "GeForce 4 MX", whatever that turns out to be.)
Conclusion? You can't just pick a horse for any situation. If you're a gamer, you're going to be happier with a PC, probably. If you do Photoshop stuff and DTP, you're going to be happier with a Mac, probably (although I'd like to compare overall photoshop performace, not limited to Apple's selected benchmarks). For Unix server functions, I'm not sure what the relative performances are comparing i386/Linux with OS/X or PPC/Linux - I'm sure someone will come up with tests. Etc, etc.
But the systems are just *so* different that straight comparisons are pretty hard. I mean, look at all the contraversy surrounding Athlon XP and Pentium 4 benchmarks, and they run the exact same stuff...
Do you really think a P4 is IDLING for 20 cycles? (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you really mean that you think a "pipeline" of length X means that the computer performs one instruction and then waits for X cycles?
In that case it would be absolutely pointless to ever have a pipleline with X>1. Why is Apple using X=7, then?
The reason is of course that by increasing the pipeline you can get a higher frequency while a good compiler will still be able to "hide" the latency to a good extent. The last 20 years in the industry has been revolved about instruction scheduling and out-of-order executing...
Is X=20 too much? Well, that depends on the speed increase you can get from it, but in many cases the P4 really shines.
You can of course claim that X=7 is the god-given universal constant known to be perfect.... Although a year or two ago Mac users used to claim that X=5 was perfect (before Motorola increased it).
So, your argument is essentially "If Apple/Motorola are increasing the pipeline it is a good thing (TM), but if anyone else does it it's cheating."
Get a life...
Re:Doesn't apply to Apples (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Less and less BTO - bums me out (Score:2, Insightful)
Your Dr. Bott claim is specious, the multi-hundreds you are talking about it 1.5 approximately. The price works out to $149.95.
ADC is a non-ratified version of the DVI working group specification for DVI-I. Since you need membership to see the full spec at http://www.ddwg.org/ go to http://www.dvigear.com/dviaccessories.html to see the similarities between DVI-I and ADC.
There is a way to get VGA to ADC but it costs $350. http://www.gefen.com/products/extendit/new_kvm_us
A cheaper solution is to use the Dr. Bott Device and hook it up to the new RadeonVE/7000, which retails for $129.
Not to be too harsh, but you've prefaced your post with the idea that you want to impress your client with the style and performance.
I propose that your problem is analagous to the difference between a Corvette convertible (a duallie athlon in a Lian aluminum case) and a BMW Z8 (dual G4). Z8 owners do not have any better performance or features than Corvette owners, but they have the style and exclusivity that comes with a price tag that is double that of a Corvette. If you want to pay less, get the Corvette.
Re:Less and less BTO - bums me out (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't need a SuperDrive. I don't want a SuperDrive. Apple won't give you a 933 or 1GHz DP machine without a SuperDrive. Sorry but I'd rather save hundreds of dollars by simply not buying one!
Historically, removing the Superdrive from the powermac configuration to the lowest possible option (cd/dvd) was a $250 savings. Apple made the Superdrive a non-option as 90% of the people buying high end powermacs wanted them. Frankly, $250 for DVD-write capability is a freaking bargan. That being said, if enough people want them without a superdrive, they'll add lower model options. Apple is not Dell. Apple actually listens to their customers.
THEREFORE Your system can only work with one Apple display, because only one card slot has this power connection.
Note that both card options, the ATI and GeForce4 both come with dual display support on the freaking card. If you need more, apple still sells the radeons that existed in their multi display option previously.
To my knowledge there is no adaptor that will give you a VGA output from the ADC port.
Go to the apple store website and click "displays" under the accessories listing on the site. The ADC to DVI connector is $39 bucks. That will allow basically anyone's display to work with an ADC card. Need to go to VGA? Well, aside from it being a pointless waste of time to go to a crappy analog signal, any number of companies make DVI->VGA adapters for a couple dollars. Most ATI cards come with them in the box.
You can go the opposite way as well, and connect an apple display to a DVI card with the Dr Bott DVIator. For $149.99.
So, in essence you are going to pay an extra 250 bucks or so to hook up a second Apple Display to the single card powermac. Big whoop. If you can afford an extra grand for a second display, that "premium" shouldn't be such a shock.
A waste of PCI slots? It has four. With two video cards, a SCSI card, and a high end audio card, you can run up to four displays as well as handle everything else even the most professional user could ever want.
The point, as they say, has been missed (Score:5, Insightful)
1- These are workstation class machines (as far as Macs go). 2mb L3 cache per proc, 64-bit pci, 1000/100/10 NICs, superdrive, etc. Apple knows its target audience and delivers what they need.
2- Once you're up in this price range, the price is usually moot for the buyer. The people buying these machines will drop 10k for one box (for CPU, software, monitor, etc) and don't bat an eye. I mean, do you think the average consumer would shell out 600+ bucks JUST for Photoshop if they had no viable means for a Return on Investment? That's what a Mac is to the people who buy their high end machines - a way to get work done NOW. Any downtime means they don't get their RoI, and that's why these people don't usually build their own boxen, and why they will pay a premium for a Mac.
3- To respond to a few earlier posts.
--Macs are the deFacto standard for professional audio, and will only become more so. Id say 80% + market share for this. I've been to many recording studios, and without fail, they have a Mac or 2 hooked up.
--64bit pci.. Well, there are only a few kinds of cards you'll find in the average Mac. High end video, ultra160 SCSI, high end audio and special purpose accelerators (encoding, graphics effects, etc). All of these are high bandwidth tasks.
Yes, you COULD build a PC that has faster specs for less. But you'd be missing the point. Computers are tools. If you're making money with your computer, and you're in one of the businesses where Apple products excel, you're shooting yourself in the foot to go with anything else. And I imagine with OSX, that the sector where Apple products excel will only be getting bigger.
Here's a Pro Mac purchase for Graphic Design / ProSumer Video/ audio. Feel free to make up a comparable PC.
Right from the apple store... I know I could save money buying HD and ram elsewhere, but I am shooting for convenience. Make sure PC has - sound card, 64bit pci, firewire, case, motherboard, dual head support, and an OS (that has all the comparable apps)
(1 GHz PPC G4) x 2
1.5 GB dram
22" cinema display
iPod
SuperDrive
GeForce4 MX
56k modem
10/100/1000 NIC
keyboard/optical mouse
AirPort card
OSX.1
Dual channel ultra160 card
(72 GB ultra160 HD) x 2
AppleCare plan (3yr hardware replacement)
TOTAL............. $8,845.00
Now, the software....this is usually full retail, not going to look for deals.(mostly right from apple store)
DVD Studio Pro
FinalCut Pro3
MS Office..$459.95
FileMaker Pro...$249.00
AfterEffects Pro..$1499.95
Illustrator...$399.00
InDesign...$699.95
Photoshop...$649.95
GoLive...$399.95
BBEdit...$119.95
Flash5...$399.95
That's enough to do most tasks......not going to look for pro audio equip or a pro video capture card (add about $3-6k for that at least)
TOTAL.........$6875.65
Time for the pro Audio and video cards
ProTools HD 1
Protools 192 IO
Can't think of a video card Mfg ATM, ill go with
Media100 for ~ 4,000
Add in some accessories
Graphics tablet..$400
Speakers...$600 (reference monitors)
17" studio display...$999 (definitely need a second display)
TOTAL....... $17,989
I'm sure im missing a few things, and this hasn't even included the supporting equipment that I would need (cameras, sound recording equip, scanners, etc, etc.)
So, for pretty much what you would have stuck inside the box, or hanging directly off of it, you have a grand total of..........
GRAND TOTAL......$33709.65
Can most people personally afford 7k+ for software alone? No. So now you see the market Macs are often used in, and the money generally tied in to them, and why people choose Macs to get work done. Fast. Efficiently. It has to be easy; it has to work, because they need to make back such a huge amount of money.
Where the money goes (Score:4, Insightful)
Anti-compeitive?
They make their own software for their own hardware so they're anti-competive? They have to compete with each and every computer maker in the industry. You aren't forced to buy a Mac. In fact, if anything, most people are forced to buy a Windows machine.
Apple brings in 30% gross margins on average on hardware sales, but it's not like they just toss all of the money in a big pile. Apple reported a fiscal Q1 revenue of $1.38 billion. Do you know how much was profit? $38 million.
See, Apple actually creates and maintains products. They give away things like iDVD, iMovie, iPhoto and iTunes for free with every machine they sell. They also give every Mac owner free email, free web space -- all without ads.
A company like Dell doesn't really compete by coming up with new products per say. They take the newest intel processor and the newest rev of Windows, stick it in a box, and sell it to you on a razor thin margin. They compete primarily on the sale, secondarily on the product.
This is great if all you care about is a cheap PC that does the same stuff your old one did, but faster. Unfortunately, this thinking has contributed to a huge downturn in the PC industry. At some point, PC makers decided cheap and fast was all that mattered. Somebody forgot about inventiveness and experience. Cheap and fast is good in some situations, but you cannot rely on that entirely. You have to move forward on fronts besides clock rate.
So the fact that you pay more for a Mac means Apple can afford to create things like Mac OS X, iTools, iDVD, iPhoto, etc. It also contributes to the support of things like Darwin. Thank goodness they're doing this kind of stuff, because few others are.
- Scott
Re:Talk about misinformation! (Score:2, Insightful)
I have seen many people make this mistake. Performance is measured in units of *time*.
Lets walk through an exercise using the numbers you have quoted:
You take a 7 cycle hit on a mispredict on an 800MHz G4. That's 8.5 nanoseconds of penalty.
You take a 10 cycle hit on a 1.5GHz Athlon. That's 6.6 nanoseconds!!! The Athlon whips the G4 in mispredict penalty, even though it has a longer pipe.
2) You assume that a beefy FPU and Altivec unit translates into higher performance.
Let's take this apart...
The Mac with G4 has lots of *execution* bandwidth for altivec and fp. However...can the memory system keep up to feed the operands to this engine? I doubt it...They're still using a 133 single channel SDRAM memory solution with it's wimpy ~1Gbyte/sec bandwidth. Their L3 SRAM cache (which is 2 Megs) only has 4Gbyte/sec bandwidth. This is pitiful considering that a 400MHz RAMBUS system gives you 3.2GByte/sec bandwidth to DRAM! The Northwood Pentium 4 processors that will come out with the 533MHz bus will have 4.2Gbyte/sec bandwidth to DRAM.
More than the mac's L3 cache!!!
Re:Moore's Law in effect? (Score:3, Insightful)