SMP mac is a JOKE!!!

PCAddict

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 1999
3,804
0
0
You'd think that Apple was the first to develop a dual-CPU system considering the way they are hyping it up. It's still a Mac.

"You can't polish a turd, Beavis."- Butthead
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
24,003
1,622
126
OS X will support SMP, and both the Radeon and Geforce 2 MX will be available for the Mac.

That machine is gonna be killer for 2D graphics work, and hopefully 3D as well.
 

xtreme2k

Diamond Member
Jun 3, 2000
3,078
0
0
well

OS X's beta is not even out yet

and I duno how the MX can kick some GTS arse

and also i think a Celeron is already a 'killer' for '2d' work...



 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,965
278
126
Yeah, those Celerons are agravating to use for detailed 2D work. The 66fsb is just too little of a response time for the memory.
 

T2T III

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,899
1
0


<< OS X will support SMP >>


So why purchase a system with dual processors when the second processor won't be put to use for another 9 months, or more???
 

GL

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,547
0
0
Don't diss the Mac...hardware at least. The G4 can kill the PIII and Athlon with its pinky finger in terms of floating point performance now that it has one of the best implementations of a SIMD instruction set. The Radeon will be available for the current G4s in September I've heard. The MacOS sucks, but apparently there are a few applications that will be able to take advantage of the dual CPUs (Photoshop of course being one of them). This is regardless of the fact that the OS itself is not SMP capable. But MacOS X being based on BSD, is gonna be one hell of an operating system. Personally, if I had the money right now I'd buy one of those G4s (not the cube of course, but the nice blue and white one with the cinema display) and throw LinuxPPC on it.

-GL
 

GL

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,547
0
0
UPDATE on SMP:

MaximumPC is talking out of their ass in terms of &quot;[there is] no operating system which will take advantage of the Symmetric Multithreaded Processing (SMP) of the newest Power Macs&quot;

Don't misinterpret this misleading statement. The MacOS is Asymmetric multiprocessing capable. On the MacOS it is possible for applications themselves to utilize the second CPU by using this asymmetric multiprocessing API. That's how Adobe got Photoshop to fly on the dual CPU configuration. Here are some benchmarks:

Ripped from Slashdot (which I would say is a balanced source considering they pretty much hate everything that's not *nix):



<< Used a 500 MHz G4 vs. a 1 GHz Pentium III with Altivec and SSE enhanced filters, respectively. Did the standard Photoshop test, this time rendering the &quot;Inspector Gadget&quot; movie poster. G4 = 100 sec, P3 = 124 sec.

They did the same showdown again with a dual-G4 machine vs. a single P3 machine. Note that Photoshop is one of the few Mac apps designed to take advantage of Apple's asymmetric multiprocessing API. Until Mac OS X, not all apps will be able to take advantage of this boost. This is a bit of a stacked comparison, but not bad for an OS without SMP. 61 seconds on dual G4.
>>



http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/07/19/1338220&amp;mode=thread

-GL
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
24,003
1,622
126
By the way, I've played with the OS X Alpha. NICE! The interface is sooooooo much nicer than Windows and it looks like the thing might end up actually being stable (unlike the current Mac OS).

Now the Photoshop scores are gonna be skewed quite a bit, because the benchmarks always pick the filters that favour the Mac. But, the bottom line is still that those G4s are fast machines. (And unlike PCs, the case actually has some style - albeit not really my taste.)
 

xtreme2k

Diamond Member
Jun 3, 2000
3,078
0
0
please dont give me this photoshop bench mac G4 excel at

that is the ONLY thing mac kicks PC

NOTHING else faster i know of

and i really doubt that is a fair test?

mac ppl used to bench their Mac with ATI and then PC with S3 Virge
...

 

PliotronX

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 1999
8,883
107
106
Eug, why have a &quot;stylish&quot; looking case when it's only gonna be barely looked at when exchanging CDs and dragging it out to work on the inside? Oh that's right.. you can't tweak a Mac like a PC. Forget working under the hood.

No matter how much power it has.. it's still a Mac, and always will be a Mac.

Very nice quote PCAddict
 

GL

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,547
0
0
All the highend 3D apps are being ported to MacOS X. Why? It is based on BSD so porting the code from the standard *nix flavours is *easy* (relatively speaking compared to doing Win32 rewrites for NT). I'm telling you guys, as much as I hated macs before, they're on the right track.

And no, the photoshop test wasn't BS this time around. I have to agree about all the previous tests, but this one wasn't. All enhancements for the PC (i.e. SSE enhanced filters) was turned on. The PIII just got smoked that's all.

And yes Linux runs on the G4, which is why I'd love to get my hands on one of these things and kick some Intel/AMD ass in linux performance.

As far as I know, G4s kick AMD and Intel's CPUs in RC5 by a factor of more than 2.

MacOS X is going beta in September and as I said, the Radeon equipped G4s are supposedly already filtering through the retail channels. We'll have to see, but I have no doubt that a Radeon equipped G4 can kick a Radeon equipped PC in standard gaming benchmarks like Q3.

But that's OK guys Nothing I say will ever change your minds...we'll have to wait a few months until the rest of the Apple architecture catches up to the G4 CPU which I like a lot

-GL
 

paulerdos

Senior member
Oct 11, 1999
328
0
0
xtreme2k:
please dont give me this photoshop bench mac G4 excel at
that is the ONLY thing mac kicks PC
NOTHING else faster i know of


perhaps you should take this benchmark for what it is, and nothing more: it merely claims that the G4 is faster than amd/intel at photoshop. and that's a true statement. apple is not saying, &quot;our photoshop bench is better than yours, so you're going to go bankrupt,&quot; they're merely saying, &quot;our photoshop bench is better than yours.&quot; and, if somebody uses photoshop extensively, this is an important piece of information. and if you don't use photoshop extensively, well, then you can ignore apple's claims as they don't apply to you.

truth is, saying something like, &quot;SMP mac is a JOKE!!!&quot; reveals more the unfair bias of the speaker than it does the object. the mac is good for somethings (namely photoshop), and SMP mac is NOT a joke for that particular application.
 
Jun 18, 2000
11,192
765
126
Oh BTW, 3dfx have been taking preorders on the V5 5500 for the Mac about 1-2 weeks now.

Wonder when they'll be available.
 

GL

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,547
0
0
Red Dawn,

That guy who wrote the article seems to be taking this whole thing personally. I hate the common argument that this Photoshop benchmark sucks because it is heavily optimized for the Mac. That's like saying the F1 circuit tracks aren't a good indicator of car performance because they're heavily optimized for F1 cars by having no potholes, little debris, and no traffic lights. Those tracks should be praised for creating an ideal environment for getting the most out of the F1 cars. I'm only sorry that because of legacy x86, the P3 and Athlon have to deal with all of these potholes, debris and red lights. Let's give credit where credit is due. Motorola made one fine chip around one very good platform. And it is indeed faster, clock for clock than x86 chips.

For anyone who doubts the merits of the G4, I highly recommend this Ars Technica article describing it:

3 1/2 SIMD Architectures
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/1q00/simd/simd-1.html


<< Right now, I think it's clear that AltiVec's SIMD implementation is the cleanest, most extensible, and most powerful of the current lot. >>



and this one...

The G4 and the K7: an architectural look at two post-RISC processorshttp://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/1q00/g4vsk7/g4vsk7-3.html


<< On the other hand, the MPC7400's Altivec unit truly does rock; powerful, dedicated SIMD hardware like that is tough to beat. And as far as the overall CPU is concerned, Motorola's design team did an amazing job in packing a clean, fast, elegant design onto a small die with low power consumption. As a result, the MPC7400 is product with incredible range: all the way from high-end servers to workstations to appliances. I personally have to admit that for these (mostly esthetic) reasons I'm partial to the 7400 over the K7 (Actually, I dig the Alpha most of all. But that's off topic.). The K7 is a big hairy beast of a CPU, whereas the 7400 gets the job done with elegance and simplicity -- two traits that appeal to the engineer and coder in me. >>



-GL
 

brian_riendeau

Platinum Member
Oct 15, 1999
2,256
0
0
&quot;I have no doubt that a Radeon equipped G4 can kick a Radeon equipped PC in standard gaming benchmarks like Q3.&quot;

Not gonna happen. Have you ever seen benchamrks comparing Quake3 on G4 compared to Intel/AMD systems all using the Rage128 video cards? The G4s get crushed.
 

GL

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,547
0
0
brian

The mac version of the Rage 128 is clocked slower than the PC version if I'm not mistaken (I tried to verify this but ATI doesn't post these sort of specs...at least for Macs).

But while I was at the ATI website I realized the mac is only getting the 32 MB version of the Radeon for the time being, due out in September.

I think one of the reasons the Macs got trounced in those benchmarks (I remember seeing them a while back) is because it was a G3 processor, and not a G4. That's like comparing a PIII to a PII in an app that utilizes SSE. Secondly, the MacOS itself does suck for gaming. Of course, the third reason is the lower-clocked ATI card whose drivers weren't optimized for a SIMD-capable CPU the way they probably were on the x86 end.

This being said, Apple licensed OpenGL, they have Carmack feeding them advice I believe as a technical input person, and they have OS X coming out. OS X is to the Mac and the current Mac OS, what Win9x/DirectX was to the PC and Win 3.11.

Anyways, I'm starting to get nauseous...I'm not a Mac addict but I'm starting to sound like one without even owning one! I think I should just shut up now.

-GL
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
24,003
1,622
126
Yeah, I don't own one either, but I can appreciate their uses.

&quot;The G4 can be a 100 times faster, but if there really aren't any quality apps for most of us to use then what good is it?&quot;

As for gaming, it illustrates that people just don't get the point of existence of the G4. The Mac has not traditionally been a gaming platform. Everyone I know who owns a Mac does 2D design, and couldn't care less that they can't run 3D games. They DO care that they can't do good 3D design, and are happy that the fast consumer 3D cards are finally to the Mac for that reason. But they still won't play games. Indeed, it seems that as of today, the Mac is better suited for the design crowd and many of the best &quot;quality&quot; apps are well-optimized for the Macs.

PC people always say that Macs suck in games. True (currently), but why do people freak out when the benchmark is Photoshop? Q3 is not the only benchmark in the world.

&quot;Eug, why have a &quot;stylish&quot; looking case when it's only gonna be barely looked at when exchanging CDs and dragging it out to work on the inside? Oh that's right.. you can't tweak a Mac like a PC. Forget working under the hood.&quot;

Huh? Not sure what you're talking about. Anyways, I said I'd prefer a good-looking case, simply because I like the aesthetics (although not necessarily the G4's). Simply because PCs are so damn ugly (and I've owned many) they make any room look cheap, unless you get a laptop. If I'm gonna spend 5000 bux on furniture, I'm sure as hell not gonna put an ugly beige PC in the same room. Not that I like the look of it that much, but to be frank, I'd put an iMac in my living room as an internet appliance over a cheap PC setup anyday, even considering the extra cost.

As for the case, PC case designers could learn a few things. Ever opened one up? Well it's not perfect, but in some ways it's a heluvalot easier to work with one of those than it is with most PC cases.

People call Mac people zealots. This is very true for some. But it seems that many PC people are equally zealots. I betcha most people who diss Macs have never even used a G4.

And remember people, I have never even owned a Mac. I just prefer to look at the facts, like GL.
 

Huma

Golden Member
Oct 10, 1999
1,301
0
0
I think the main problem is people on both sides of the argument who are totally biased and ignorant spewing vitriol at the other side.

It happens on both ends. PC users with litte/no mac experience rag on everything mac, and Mac users with little/no PC experience doing the same.

I've used both PC's and macs throughout my life and for me each has it's own uses.

The PC is cheap, ultra customizable (how many people actually have the exact same PC as you?, and extremely versatile. With new OS's like Win2k, they're even becoming quite stable. They can be a pain in the ass to setup and troubleshoot, and have a variety of retarded OS's and programs to choose from.

Macs excel in photoshop (no, they do not OWN photoshop, but they do extremely well in many cases, but definitely not as well as Steve Jobs would have you all believe), are generally pretty solid (after that turd MacOS 8.5 disappeared), and does the few things that it does do very well. They are well designed, and well engineered to fill it's roles well. It's also pricey as hell, which keeps it out of my house, and the limited software/hardware choices puts it out of contention as my only system as a gamer/designer/geek.

When I have the money for a couple of systems, I might get a mac to encode video on, and do my photoshop work, but I think both Mac and PC users should just realize, each is using their systems for a reason.

If zealots on both sides, and that retard steve jobs would stop trying to compare them as direct competitors, it might help. In a wide sense, they do compete, but they do pretty different things. It's like SUV owners arguing with roadster owners.
 

dszd0g

Golden Member
Jun 14, 2000
1,226
0
0


<< Ripped from Slashdot >>



Slashdot doesn't do any benchmarking and very few articles of their own. That was a link to themacjunkie. I would quite definitely consider that a pro Mac biased benchmark (it does not appear to be done by themacjunkie either.) All Slashdot was doing was pointing their Mac users to some MacOS Keynote coverage.
 

xtreme2k

Diamond Member
Jun 3, 2000
3,078
0
0
When it comes to Integer Execution Units, the K7 slaps the 7400 silly. The K7 has three fully-pipelined Integer Execution Units (IEUs), each of which can do any integer operation. The 7400, on the other hand, has just two fully-pipelined IEUs, only one of which can execute any integer op. The other IEU is weaker, and can do only simpler operations. So the K7 just has more integer horsepower under the hood.

7400 is the G4

is that why they ONLY give u FP benchmark like Photoshop? i wana see some integer benches
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
GL-

How many years have you worked with Macs, it doesn't sound like it has been too long.

&quot;Don't diss the Mac...hardware at least. The G4 can kill the PIII and Athlon with its pinky finger in terms of floating point performance now that it has one of the best implementations of a SIMD instruction set.&quot;

Wrong. When tasks are optimized for both SSE/3DNow! and Altivec the Mac comes out on top on average by about 40% on a MHZ-MHZ basis. x86 currently has a 100% edge. AltiVec as it stands now is a more extensive SIMD set and is capable of tasks that neither SSE nor 3DNow! are but as of yet applications that utilize it are far less then their PC alternateves.

In terms of overall FPU performance the G4 gets b!tch slapped hard by the Athlon and even the PIII has its' way with it. The only application that I've seen the G4 close in is Lightwave render times and that is only comparitively, the x86 chips still have a nearly 50% edge in terms of performance when ignoring clock speed.

&quot;All the highend 3D apps are being ported to MacOS X. Why?&quot;

No, only Maya has been announced recently as a port, and I haven't heard any current Maya users get too excited about it. Most of them will more then likely stick with either the Irix or NT ports. Irix for the best port, NT for bang for the buck.

No other high end 3D app has been announced recently as a port to OSX. Lightwave has been available on the Mac for as long as I can remember, none of the other PC/*nix titles have said jack about OSX.

&quot;That's like saying the F1 circuit tracks aren't a good indicator of car performance because they're heavily optimized for F1 cars by having no potholes, little debris, and no traffic lights. Those tracks should be praised for creating an ideal environment for getting the most out of the F1 cars. I'm only sorry that because of legacy x86, the P3 and Athlon have to deal with all of these potholes, debris and red lights. Let's give credit where credit is due. Motorola made one fine chip around one very good platform. And it is indeed faster, clock for clock than x86 chips.&quot;

Have you ever used Photoshop on the PC? You assign memory in the application, running Windows. To say PS is poorly ported is an understatement. I think it still is a perfectly valid benchmark as PS performance is important for many users but it is not a well ported piece of software. Let's use something like Bryce or Lightwave, something that was done properly.

Motorola most certainly did not build the 7400 around the Mac platform. It is designed for embedded devices as its' primary objective, the reasons for the lack of MHZ. Moto made a design decission in the way they designed the processor to make it very fast at low operating frequencies in comparitive terms due to this fact. If they were focusing on the desktop market they would hve had sense to realize that people care, a lot, about the number on the box(MHZ). Apple was foolish relying on Moto simply because they had AltiVec, IBM has demonstrated PPC chips using the G3 technology that blow away the G4 in all non AltiVec enabled tasks(clocking in the 700MHZ range), so roughly 95%. Apple wanted PR instead of looking out for what is best for their customers.

&quot;The mac version of the Rage 128 is clocked slower than the PC version if I'm not mistaken (I tried to verify this but ATI doesn't post these sort of specs...at least for Macs).&quot;

Back in late '98 early '99 they were. This was an issue with the first revision of the G3 Macs. At the time if people remember the Rage128 had yet to start shipping on the PC side, the reason for this was massive yield problems. Apple needed the boards badly to launch their new G3(the blue and white ones) and told ATi to give them whatever they had(paraphrasing). ATi could supply in volume Rage128 chips clocked roughly 50% lower then what would be launched on the PC side and Apple took them. When ATi had their problems fixed they shipped the full speed Rage128 boards to Apple and they were included in all RevB G3 towers. If you have one around you can identify them by heatsinks, the RevA towers didn't have one on the graphcs card while the RevB and on did.

This in itself wouldn't be too bad but Mr. Reality Distortion Zone sent out &quot;cooked&quot; press units that contained boards running at full speed to all the review sites/mags and also posted benchmarks using the non castrated Rage128 chip on Apple's web site.

I'm not trying to bash Macs here, but you seem to have gotten a lot of disinformation from somewhere. People use Macs for two reasons, they like the GUI(which is only a small part of the OS) or they work with images that need to be accurate when they are sent to the print house and come back.
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
24,003
1,622
126
Red Dawn,

You're right, no mention of gaming, but that's one of the things I thought you were referring to (because everyone else seems to). I stand corrected.



BenSkywalker seems like a guy who knows what he's talking about. He criticizes Mac, where the criticism is due, as in the above post.


Anyways, I hope you don't think I'm a Mac zealot because I'm not. I've NEVER owned a Mac, but just use them from time to time. And you know what? Even though I run a severly overclocked PC with chi chi overclocking PC stuff etc., I still like to use a Mac for the stuff it's best for.

P.S. People criticize photoshop as a benchmark. Yeah, okay, so it's kinda skewed, but that isn't the point either. People like the Mac version, and it's fast on a G4, so they use it. Nothing wrong with that.
 

IvoryGrail

Senior member
Apr 30, 2000
710
0
0
Also to add to the &quot;3dapps&quot; statement by Ben Skywalker, don't expect 3dstudioMax(best-selling 3dapp) to be ported ever on that platform due to Kinetix's(Discreet) commitment to INTEL(evil I know).
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |