Reading Hardware

I will kill to get this... hmm... I have 2 christmases and 2 birthdays until I go off to college 'Umm, hey all giving me presents, can you just give me cash instead?'. I WANT this. Holy Lord In Heaven, read the specs on this. A 'Flash' Harddrive (like flash chip, only massively large) capeable of 8 gb/s transfer rate.

...

Pistol Grip Pump In My Lap At All Times

I'm reaching critical geek mass over here.

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion

Omg.

I wish I'd never clicked that link. How could I ever be happy with my puny pc again? ;-)

'Repent, Harlequin!' said the Ticktockman. 'Get stuffed!' the Harlequin replied, sneering.

You gotta live with that - others (me) have to live with such technological disadvantages since .. i dont know what time ...

the "best" system I currently own is my notebook: Celeron 533, 196 MB RAM, 6.1 GB HDD, 2x PC-Card/PCMCIA-slots, all slots one can long for, all of that cramed inside a cheap plastic hull.

cu, w0lf.

ps: something i'm missing in this ubercomputer: some Linux BIOS, which lets you initialize the system in less than 2 seconds. (read more iX).

Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign for a diseased mind!

This post was edited by ginsterbusch on Dec 02, 2003.

Nice.

It almost makes the new G5s look slow. However, I didn't hear them say they were running 64 bit processors. In fact, if they're using P4 special editions, imagine how mush faster they'd be if they were using Mac technology. G5's are running 1 GB bus speed, and 512K of L3 cache.

Can't get past that flash storage though...

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

I hate to tell you this, but the G5's aren't the best.

The performance would be far greater if it was running an AMD Athlon 64. I read a benchmark test comparing an AMD Athlon 64 to a dual G5 system, and the Athlon out performed the G5's in all but one test (a photoshop test applying filters on a 50 mb image. The G5 rendered 18 seconds faster). The benchmark compared rendering workspaces in Premier, Quicktime, and 2 different functions in Word. The AMD (system built by alienware) was tested by PC World, and the G5's were tested by Mac World (or whatever the mac sister of PC world is).

Souce: PC World Magazine (Click link for results)

Pistol Grip Pump In My Lap At All Times

So what is the best? <inser="rhetorical question">
This is neat. I was just on the Mac site today looking at some of the vitals. It's funny, they were comparing the G5 with dual 1.6 gig proc against dual Xeon 3.2g and it trampled it handsomely. But this was in the Photoshop test (don't know the sizw file.) Was there really briefly, didn't see other kinds of tests.

Oh, if only they used 64 bit Athlons...But truth be told, with the rest of the "plumbing," I don't think these Athlons could stay stable.

The way I see it is that the macs aren't perfect. They too have their quarks. But the point is that at half the rated speed, they usually out perform the competition, pretty regularly. I don't have a mac, or sell them, etc., but when i started reading about their architecture, I was impressed. And the fact of the matter is that in the professional arena, Macs are king; for good reason.

And think about this: the mac G5 with dual 1.6 gig cpuS running 64 bit instruction sets, Superdrive, 80 GB storage...and the 1GHz bus to each processor...is running $1800 if I've read it correctly. NOTHING CAN TOUCH THAT THAT! PERIOD! :)

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

This post was edited by zen on Dec 04, 2003.

Goodness... slight modesty in a Mac fan. Seriously, I am impressed. I don't know a single Mac-cultee that would ever admit what you just admitted.

Speed ratings mean nothing nowadays. I run an Athlon XP 2000+ that runs at 1.3 ghz, but performs just the same as a P4 2 ghz. AMD has a different focus than Intel (and Mac it seems). Intel boards focus on the bus speed while AMD focueses on memory latencies and other such items (such as their Quantispeed, and such).

Personally, I wouldn't trust a benchmark by Apple. Neither would I truly trust a benchmark by Gateway, Dell, Compaq, Alienware, Falcon Northwest, etc. I trust 3rd party benchmarks (loyalty is not there) but the element of bribery does come into play, but what is the point?

And think about this: the mac G5 with dual 1.6 gig cpuS running 64 bit instruction sets, Superdrive, 80 GB storage...and the 1GHz bus to each processor...is running $1800 if I've read it correctly.

There is no way you read that correctly. Macs are typically far more expensive than PC's (due to the fact that Apple is the only place you can buy a mac, while there are atleast 20 different PC motherboard manufactures (abit, ecs, etc...), and all are competing for the market, which is larger than Apple's). Though, it may just be a bare bones system.

But, I bet you I could built the PC equivalent for a slightly lower price (probably only $500 to a thousand less...). Was looking for a place to build (online ya know), but this is one of those specilize companies (3dboxx). I'll get back to you on that.

Oops, forgot. Mac's have got to watch out professional wise. Dreamorks switched its servers and desktops to Linux. Plus, every major piece of graphics software (Mayay, 3ds max, Lightwave, etc..) are only for the pc (some may have come out w/ mac ports). Though mac does have Adobe, most 3d animation companies all use either SGI or PC's. Mac's have the publishing world though.

Pistol Grip Pump In My Lap At All Times

This post was edited by eljefe on Dec 04, 2003.

Goodness... slight modesty in a Mac fan. Seriously, I am impressed. I don't know a single Mac-cultee that would ever admit what you just admitted.

I guess it's kinda like a guy admitting that he's sensitive. He'll get lynched. When one is hopelessly outnumbered, he'll keep his mouth shut. I'm not a Mac cultee, or fan. I'm just impressed by what the new platform has to offer.
And the truth of the matter is that ifI had money, I'd get one to do my video editing and not regret it for a second.

Speed ratings mean nothing nowadays. I run an Athlon XP 2000+ that runs at 1.3 ghz, but performs just the same as a P4 2 ghz. AMD has a different focus than Intel (and Mac it seems). Intel boards focus on the bus speed while AMD focueses on memory latencies and other such items (such as their Quantispeed, and such).

well, the fact is that speed stopped mattering long ago. Remember when they hit 1GHz? That was a BIG deal. After that, it stopped being relevant. For the average person who doesn't know about pipeline burst, bandwith and the fact that Noth and South Bridges are no longer produced, speed is all that really matters. It's like buying a car for a guy; engine size is everything. And think about something else, the average person, if he/she knows anything about computers, asked what is inside their "box" they'll tell you "Pentium." It's for those people that speed ratings are so important.

And I don't know if AMD and Intel focus on doing different things with their engineering. I think that they develop their technology in different ways (a good thing) and have strengths and weaknesses. AMD has Quantispeed archetecture. Pentium has Hyperthreading. Both are supposed to have the same end result, right? Essentially having the OS recognize one as two cpus.

Personally, I wouldn't trust a benchmark by Apple. Neither would I truly trust a benchmark by Gateway, Dell, Compaq, Alienware, Falcon Northwest, etc. I trust 3rd party benchmarks (loyalty is not there) but the element of bribery does come into play, but what is the point?

There has to be benchmark and statistics. That is the nature of the beast. However, tests can be biased, as hard as that is for people to accept. The Premiere "test" for example. Lots of people use Premiere, and lots of people use Pentiums. However, Pents have always sucked at the type of instructions that Prem uses. Give it a bigger chore, it'll suck more.
Overll I agree, who gives valid test results <insert= rhetorical questionmark here">

Previous post: And think about this: the mac G5 with dual 1.6 gig cpuS running 64 bit instruction sets, Superdrive, 80 GB storage...and the 1GHz bus to each processor...is running $1800 if I've read it correctly. see link @Mac-G5

There is no way you read that correctly. Macs are typically far more expensive than PC's (due to the fact that Apple is the only place you can buy a mac, while there are atleast 20 different PC motherboard manufactures (abit, ecs, etc...), and all are competing for the market, which is larger than Apple's). Though, it may just be a bare bones system.

No, the difference is that one has to buy a few other things, like the monitor, et al, and that brings up the price at least a grand. But still, that's cheaper than the L Mach L 3.8 system that this thread started on.

But, I bet you I could built the PC equivalent for a slightly lower price (probably only $500 to a thousand less...). Was looking for a place to build (online ya know), but this is one of those specilize companies (3dboxx). I'll get back to you on that.

I'd love to hear what you come up with. I'm going to be going through my semi-annual computer building process shortly after X-Mas, so I welcom your results.

Oh, almost forgot. Mac's have got to watch out professional wise. Dreamorks switched its servers and desktops to Linux. Plus, every major piece of graphics software (Mayay, 3ds max, Lightwave, etc..) are only for the pc (some may have come out w/ mac ports). Though mac does have Adobe, most 3d animation companies all use either SGI or PC's. Mac's have the publishing world though.

Sure. We don't have the budgets they do, noe the headaches of cutting costs like the studios. Linux is basically Unix on modern DOS units. Or put another way, the Mac OS on PC hardware...the best of both worlds :)
(And yes I know this is simplifying things, and I don't care:)

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

Give me a bit. I don't have the time right now, but I know of good places for PC hardware. As for your G5, these are the specs:

1.6GHz PowerPC G5
800MHz frontside bus
512K L2 cache
256MB DDR333 128-bit SDRAM
Expandable to 4GB SDRAM
80GB Serial ATA
SuperDrive
Three PCI Slots
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR video memory
56K internal modem
Source [Click Here]

So, I will match this (using an AMD because AMD > Pentium, plus AMD is 64 bit while Intel's 64 is the Xenon, which is not mainstream.)

Pistol Grip Pump In My Lap At All Times

It's the Xeon, not Xenon. I don't think Intel is using inert gas in the mfg of their chips at this point, but I could be wrong. Perhaps this opens up a new chapter in cooling? (A little humor there ;)

Anyway, as far as specs, I got mine from a a different place (http://www.apple.com/powermac/) and it shows It shows a 1GHz bus, memory upgradable to 8GB, uses pci-x, firewire 400, also comes with ATI Rad 9800 Pro, etc. Maybe what you saw was the OLD Mac G5? (Does such an animal exist?)

And no, you'd rightly observe, all that can NOT be had for under $1800. But price isn't at issue where quality is concerned, right?

Speaking of benchmarks, this month's MacWorld published a great article showing the results from PC World...guess you can trust Apple (somewhat). If you get a chance, the editorial by publisher is interesting. He talks about this very same debate!!

I keep getting bumped off line (That's probably a hint or something.) I'm running low on time too, and I have to pick up my sister and her kids. (We got about 1 foot of snow here in SE Conn. And you?)

I wanted to say something about this below when I get a chance.

"Oops, forgot. Mac's have got to watch out professional wise. Dreamorks switched its servers and desktops to Linux. Plus, every major piece of graphics software (Mayay, 3ds max, Lightwave, etc..) are only for the pc (some may have come out w/ mac ports). Though mac does have Adobe, most 3d animation companies all use either SGI or PC's. Mac's have the publishing world though. "

Next time... :)

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

The pc tested in the benchmarks had ATI Radeon 9800 pro's in them. The magazine was testing the best of both worlds, thats why they put the G5's up against the Alienware, Falcon Northwest, and Voodoo systems. The mac magazing provided and tested the G5's, so I am willing to bet it is the new G5. Also, never trust benchmarks on the company website (I wouldn't trust benchmarks on Apple, Dell, Compaq, Gateway, Alienware, etc.. sites). They always smudge to make a sale. Also, fireware 400 makes no difference on the benchmarks ;) even then if it did, pc's only come standard with USB 2.0.

I live in East Texas. We get as about as much snow as 'masculine' rating of Richard Simmons (absolutely none). It sucks over here, the weather. Incredibly hot and humid summers, very cold winters (or cold in my opninion, stays around 40). nothing in between. But the trees are pretty ;)

Pistol Grip Pump In My Lap At All Times

Well, I agree on principle that one should never trust anyone. But the PC World tests also say that Mac were superior in certain things, and that's what Mac World published. The problem is that there weren't many of them at all! :(

The point of Firewire 400 wasn't related to bench-tests, in the same respect of you listing components wasn't related to benchmark scores.

I had wanted to make a point about the plethora of digital motion graphics content producers (a.k.a. DGC (formerly- special effects houses)) like ILM, Digital Domain, et al. going Linux. That is true. For a serious sfx pro house to remain viable, it has to use Linux software running a, say, 5,000 node RackSaver RSC-1200VA to do serious number-crunching. [Usually the time is rented, but some companies actually BUY the machines(!)] These are the render farms used to process the complex worlds and sfx of movies like "Attack of the Clones"(c), "MIB II"(c), "Minority Report"(c), "T3"(c) and others. But this is just the render farm. That isn't talking about content creation. For that the designer/artist still depends on his desktop. Either Mac or Win platforms.

3D Studio Max, Maya, LightWave, Cinema 4-D, Photoshop, or proprietary platform like the ROTO-Tool used in "Waking World," (where a number of creators shown had macs next to PCs), are ALL sold/ported compatable with Mac and PC. I recently installed Flash, Dreamweaver and Fireworks on my computer. I was asked "Mac" or "PC"? And my guess is that any serious (motion) graphics company is GOING to CONTINUE to offer that choice for the conceivable future.

Back on the homefront:
We ended up with 9 1/2" of snow. Not bad, even by NE standards.

Yeah for pretty trees!!

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

It looks nice, but I'm wondering about the ambient heat it produces (i.e. the effects of the temperature in the local room.) My AMD 2100+ seems to heat up the room a lot during the summer months (or it could be another factor, like the powersupply producing the heat, or improper weather protection, etc.)

While I do know that this is extremely difficult to measure, it is a fact that cooling systems are disperse heat into the surrounding environment. Depending on how much heat is produced, it could be a bit unhealthy in some places.

Other than the heat problem, it's an impressive computer in every respect. Probably could remain a leader of the pack for two years - unless there is a major change in architecture.

Probably would generate some heat.

New architecture? [NOTE: I heard this a while ago, but my details may be off]. AMD is planning on changing thier architecture. I can't remember what they are going to do, but they are going to cut something out. I want to say the FSB, but I don't know.

Pistol Grip Pump In My Lap At All Times