“The dual Athlon is still the fastest PC we’ve tested, but the single Intel P4 2.53 GHz machine runs a close second, and even beats the dual Athlon on some of the tests. And, as expected, the Mac dual 1GHz G4 could not even come close to keeping up with these two PCs. Even though the P4 machine has only a single processor, it was easy for it to leave the dual-processor Mac far behind.” Read the benchmarks at DigitalVideoEditing.
Our Take: Some readers were discussing two days ago in our recent story of Apple’s possible jump to another architecture, that speed does not matter for an Apple user. I completely disagree with this statement (MacOSX is still very slow on my G4 Cube 450 Mhz 1 MB L3 Cache, 448 MB SDRAM, while WindowsXP literally flies on my dual Celeron 533, 128 KB cache, with 256 MB SDRAM), as Apple is leaning and betting a lot towards digital/multimedia professional software with the buyout of several key multimedia companies the last few months. It is clear that they want to become the “professional” image/digital OS, something similar to the market SGI used to have a few years back. For that plan to succeed, they need more processing power, power that do not have with the current G4s. And even simple users could use more speed, as the OS itself or the browsing experience is a far cry, speed-wise, from other OS alternatives.
Both G4 vs x86 benchmarks (first benchmark here) show that the G4s are lagging behind in speed a lot (even on Photoshop tests, where Apple used to have an edge), while rumors only want Jobs to introduce a 1.2 Ghz G4 next month, which is still very far away from what a PC can do these days speed-wise (and Intel will release a 3 Ghz Pentium4 before the end of the year).
On a related note, please read our recent editorial “Apple To Consider x86 After MacOSX Transition Done“.
A quick note about memory in Mac hardware. Adding DDR memory doesn’t help out that much if the G4 processor can’t keep up with it.
Other way around, Memory has never kept pace with CPU speeds.
The point of my post was how bad G4 bandwidth is, increeasing it will I suspect send the performance shooting upwards.
Slapping DDR on a Mac would only increase the speed ala XServe. More changes need to be made, especially on the chipset, to accomadate the bandwidth increase.
I don’t think the chipset is the problem, it cna handle the bandwidth but the CPU bus cannot, perversly though the G4 does include a fast DDR bus to the L3 cache.
Firstly, to add clock speed, it doesn’t mean your manufacturing cost would go up. Take for example P4, whose manufacturing cost went down because of using 0.13micron process. They pushed it down futher by using a larger wafer, reducing the die size and so on
Going to 0.13um will reduce the amount of silicon used and this indeed cuts the cost per chip but this is far from the complete story. First you need a fab which costs > $1000,000,000 and then you need the equipment to make the things which is umpteen million. Going to 0.13um will only cut the costs after the price of the transition have been paid for – and of course things like masks which cost $600,000 a pop.
Going to 0.13um is not cheap by any means.
And as for heat, I notice lately processors from Intel and AMD are getting more and more cooler
G4 is considerably smaller than either and Motorola have been ahead in low power for years. Intel and AMD are optimising their designs and moving to 0.13um also reduces power usage. But the G4 has a distinct advantage here.
Well if you have read any of my posts you know I like the mac OS, hardware as of late has been a problem, and this once again confirms what I have said.
Just the basic bus speeds hinder the G4. We dont even have to talk about t he 1ghz chip should be at at least 1.5.
Look at some tests on the X serve with DDR. The Eserve blows by any other Apple product. Really you think Apple would learn by now. I have read that Jobs might goto X86 Platform in 03, that just might be the best thing for Apple.
So far in the posts I didn’t read one single Mac zealot’s post who actually explains reasons behind the problems of the Mac hardware and possibly the os. Instead I am reading some comments which accuses others being Apple bashers and actually bashing microsoft, Intel and so on. I personally seriously considered buying an Apple, but serious thinking and fact finding led to me conclude that Apple is basically trying to use its nice looking user interface to attract customers. Most of the other issues is not touched at all. The hardware, the price issues and so on. It is only the GUI, nothing else.
Certainly the GUI is attractive, but Windows XP is also not so bad. Overall PC is a clear win.
Sergio:
At this point, although OSX is based on the venerable UNIX, it’s still really only in its infancy-toddler stage. The release of 10.2 next month is the answer to a lot of the speed/performance issues somewhat addressed by 10.1.
Early reports are saying that 10.2 is indeed much quicker. I wonder, though, how it compares to my favorite 9.2?
As well, the Mac i/o has been steps behind PC in terms of bus and memory speed, cpu notwithstanding. Apple’s DDR xServe, though, seems to be pointing the way for improved i/o on Apple’s future Mac offerings.
Regarding OSes, though, you can call me biased, but I use XP pro, win2K pro, Mandrake, and OSX (and OS 9.2), and I’ll always come back to the Mac. In my experience, it’s the easiest to network, plays the nicest, gets in my way the least, and forces me to reboot the least. It’s not the fastest–my win2K machine holds that distinction–and that might be a big deal since I am a pro video editor.
But let me say that OSX has been the most stable OS I’ve ever worked on. And the time I save by not rebooting, troubleshooting, or even reinstalling–my win2K machine also holds that distinction–are just if not more valuable to me when I’m working on a project or showing something to a client.
That’s just my opinion and the little I know.
It all depends on how you look at it, my ibook I would not trade for the world. No PC laptop has come close( that is MY opinion). OSX is easy and way more stable than XP( I run PRO on a KT333 MB with an 1800+). Easy of use OSX wins hands down. That does not mean I like the path that Apple hardware is going(SUCKS), While the G5 was promising a year ago, now it would be stop gap, Apple might just have to goto X86 for there machines.
I could go on why Apples OS andsoftware is better overall than Windows, but the fact is Apple is lagging in the hardware department and no one wants to pay $3000 for software 🙂
#1 – I fiddle with hardware.
Please find me a mac where I can do that for cheap and maybe we’ll talk someday…
>>Please find me a mac where I can do that for cheap and maybe we’ll talk someday…<<
Just go buy a slightly older Mac, or a Rev A-D iMac and upgrade to your heart’s content 🙂