Apple's reasoning...?

[stix_kua]

I must say, that I was quite impressed by Apple's new iBook with the 12 Inch screen, the 15 inch screen and the WOW 17 inch screen.. All three systems were guite impressive and seems very suitable as desktop replacements. One thing however that really struck me was their theory on the "Megahertz myth" and to some extent, they are absolutely right. We all know that MHz does not equal performance.

Check it: http://www.apple.com/g4/myth/

watch the movie to your right...sorry my dail-up friend, it's a 17MB movie... and look at the diagram...

In the movie, they talk about the pipeline issue and I was wondering, if the processors operate at different clock speeds, why is it that their presentation shows them at the same speed. I see what they mean but,if the clock speed are different, then isn;t the dat being sent a faster pace therefore the data moves more quickly because it is executed faster...

And also there is this page (http://www.apple.com/g4/)...scroll down to the middle....hey are saying this about how there is a bottleneck in PC systems (32-64 bit processors), what's up with that?

Please explain this someone...I do see what they mean by the shorter pipeline thing but I don't see that they are accurately representing the clock speeds here...

[AlexGee]

Correct me if I am wrong but are they not comapring a DUAL 800 mhz vs. a SINGLE p4 1.7 in PHOTOSHOP, which is highly optimized for dual processors and highly agreeable to MAC's CPU architecture?

I guess they figure dual 800's is a rough comparison to a single 1.7.

Haven't MACs always done better clock for clock in Photoshop and some other graphics apps? I bet the price\performance is WAY in Intel's favor and even more so for AMD.

I wonder if you take top of line P4 or Athlon and compare to top MAC who wins at Photoshop.

The ad lookls like a lot of BS to me. I guess you need BS and lots of it to keep selling MAC's:r

[BipolarBill]

I'm going to start calling this the "Apple Myth". Look at the processors they compare. The "Williamette" 1.7GHz P4 was lame. We all know that. The same Northwood P4 flat stomps it. As a matter of fact, the P3 Celeron 1.4"A" is a much better CPU.

Do they mention that they used applications optimized for the G4? No. They did too. They used Adobe Photoshop, which was written for Apple and ported to PC. Add time for the porting translation to the schitty Williamette and the Apple starts looking good.

The real advantage to both the AMDs and the G4s is their RISC features. As a matter of fact, Apple didn't use the Athlon in their comparo, right? Know why? It's because it would embarrass the G4 at a much lower price point. Did you know that Apple is wooing AMD to make their CPUs in the future?

This is all old news.

[AlexGee]

Here is that article at Ace'shardware that destroys the MAC Mythos http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=50000333

[BipolarBill]

I should add that the 1.7 P4 tested was tested with SDRAM - not RAMBUS memory.

Take the current 3.06 "Hyperthreading" Intel CPU and good quality DDR2700 RAM and it will make the G4 look like an Amiga.

[AlexGee]

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii2.htm

nuff said

[Someone Stupid]

Originally posted by BipolarBill
I should add that the 1.7 P4 tested was tested with SDRAM - not RAMBUS memory.

Take the current 3.06 "Hyperthreading" Intel CPU and good quality DDR2700 RAM and it will make the G4 look like an Amiga.

LMAO

Apple has ALWAYS used photoshop as their benchmark. I don't think I've seen a bloody apple ad that used a different one if it brought up benchmarks. Hell, where I used to work we had some dedicated graphics platforms, and because of the inherent cost of Apples and all the **** that you HAVE to get from them, we just went with PC's of the same cost since you can knock the megehertz and ram up a good amount for the cost of the Apple's that they were looking at.

[Malaflam]

PC vs MAC - Digital Photography comparison (http://www.robgalbraith.com/diginews/2003-01/2003_01_07_macpc.html)
I found this link on Slashdot yesterday. It pretty much shows a top of the line PC (notebook) and a dell demension 1.8 desktop vs. a powerbook and a G4. They ran many different programs pretty much showing the PC killing the MAC everytime. Even the Dell put up a good fight.

[$1500-P4 gamer]

Originally posted by Malaflam
PC vs MAC - Digital Photography comparison (http://www.robgalbraith.com/diginews/2003-01/2003_01_07_macpc.html)
I found this link on Slashdot yesterday. It pretty much shows a top of the line PC (notebook) and a dell demension 1.8 desktop vs. a powerbook and a G4. They ran many different programs pretty much showing the PC killing the MAC everytime. Even the Dell put up a good fight.

The P4 3gig with HT really cleaned the floor with'em! Dang...One thing htough, they didnt mention on the main page-was it ddr rdram or what on the P4. That on a pc1200 (rdram) system hehe.:D

[IanMatthew]

Have to admit though, that Mac OSX looks real pretty. And I'm a WindowsXP user.

Was in PC world yesterday, looking at the 17" iMac. V. Nice it looked too. A salesman came up to me praising the Mac to the rooftops. I asked about Apples market share. The salesman said "going up all the time". Is this true..? What is Apples market share really..? Last I heard it was 5% or less.

[stix_kua]

Apple has a terrible Market Share...:)

OSX is Unix...with a GUI...They are too similar.

[MDLarson]

Yeah, Apple's market share has been around 5%, give or take 5%… :D

You performance PC people might be right about raw speed. SysOpt members care about speed and open architecture which is important. (I wish Apple would open it up.)

There's complaining in the Mac community about perceived slowness when it comes to actual Apple hardware. But we all swear by OS X in the end, so it doesn't matter.

BTW, I'd be saying the same thing if Apple's chips were proven faster.

[QwertyQ!]

Poor MAC their only hope to keep up with wintel hardware rests in the hand of IBMs Power4 architecture. In big unix boxes this chip smokes but it is astronomically expensive.