Mac Lovers Rejoice

[stephen2002]

That is great news for PC users as well. Mac designs always seem to end up copycated at some point or another so this means we might actually get some better watercooling solutions on the PC market.

[Drexster]

good point
i read somewhere about the first impressions of longhorn at micro$'s first public preview or whatever that it was the most blatant rip off of os x they could come up with. And with system requirements near the 6ghz mark makes the future operating system look like a winner!! lol
:D

[Drexster]

For ANYONE that doupts the power of the G5 chips, it's very simple and it comes down to this... go to an apple store and try one... the 64 amds don't even come close to the speed and power, because it's not all about the rated mhz (as we all know very well from pentium)
i've pitted both against each other (similar setup for both machines but amd had better video card)

[Funk Ride]

Not to put a damper on things, but this new lineup is a bit of a letdown. PCI-X instead of PCI-e; not so great ATi card, can be upgraded, but Apple needs to get those in the machine from the outset. 512MB ram in the top end machine as standard, that's a joke. Yes more can be added, but so the cost goes up.

Also, Apple failed on the promise of 3Ghz by this time this year. The rest of the machine is pretty cursory stuff. My gues is that the 2.5 is a stop gap til the newly designed 3Ghz machines come out, then we'll probably see much better results.

In regards to benchmarks, I just love Jobs' RDF in saying they are twice as fast in Photoshop as the PC. Uh huh, that's in those last 5 filters that the Mac can still match the PC. True though, we'l have to wait til these computers come out to se the reality of the speed comparrisons, but if it's anything like last time, the reality shows the G5 lacking.

This is me speaking as a Mac user too.

[Drexster]

actually those 3ghz models are still probably coming out same time this year as with the first g5s. (end of summer) cuse they didn't really revamp the whole lineup as they would with a major release. They have to make money too you know, so multiple releases seams like a smart choice.
Really i think this is a taste of things to come from apple, i own a g5 and i couldn't be happier and haven't touched a faster machine (using G5 optimized apps) and once the 64 os x comes out everything will come together just as planned.
:bowdown:

[richcz3]

Liquid cooled. I know that's been PC OC hobbiest realm for some time now. On teh high end there are refrigertion units. There are even water cooling kits for GPU's. I know that Gainward sells GeForce FX 5900 Ultra GPU, 256 MB that are water cooled.

What I would like to know is when a mainstream computer maker goes with a water cooled solution, that's a pretty bold step. Apple must have worked out the operational longevity of such a system.

richcz3

[Sieb]

PCI-X instead of PCI-e

PCI-X is native 64bit.

not so great ATi card, can be upgraded, but Apple needs to get those in the machine from the outset. 512MB ram in the top end machine as standard, that's a joke. Yes more can be added, but so the cost goes up.

The point is to sell the machine, you won't sell many if you make the initial price tag 5 grand.

Also, Apple failed on the promise of 3Ghz by this time this year.

Apple didn't fail, they aren't the ones making the boards/chips, its IBM that turned around and told them they wouldn't be able make the output in time.

In regards to benchmarks, I just love Jobs' RDF in saying they are twice as fast in Photoshop as the PC. Uh huh..

It's called marketing, you never pay attention to benches from the builder, plus, its comparing apples and oranges between Pentiums and Power4 chips. That discussion has already been beated to a pulp. Apple can still have the upper hand once they make OSX native 64bit.

[Funk Ride]

Originally posted by Sieb
PCI-X is native 64bit.

PCI-e is the way to go, and those machines with -X will be hampered by ugrade options in the future.
Here's a recent thread on why.

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=48409524&m=153001864631&p=1


The point is to sell the machine, you won't sell many if you make the initial price tag 5 grand.

Still not good enough a reason for selling them with such low specs, it's not giong to bring many conversions to them from the PC 3D world. Might sound good, but in comparrison to other makers, it's not enough.



Apple didn't fail, they aren't the ones making the boards/chips, its IBM that turned around and told them they wouldn't be able make the output in time.


Apple did fail. Jobs promised 3Ghz within 12 months, hasn't happened, and the IBM roadmap doesn't hint at 3Ghz anytime soon. That was Apple hype, and a failed promise. Not very good way to portray oneself.


It's called marketing, you never pay attention to benches from the builder, plus, its comparing apples and oranges between Pentiums and Power4 chips. That discussion has already been beated to a pulp. Apple can still have the upper hand once they make OSX native 64bit.

Of course it's marketing, that was my point. Good thing that the marketing spiel doesn't translate into reality when people test these machines in the real world, and under benchmarks. Just hope people remember this when it comes to actually buying a computer.

As to OS X being 64-bit. That is not going to happen soon, not in the next couple of years. The transition alone is not worth it for the sake of their installed user base, as well software developers. People get really hung up on the 64-bit issue without realising that 64-bit OS does nt mean it's twice as fast an OS.

[Blackstripe]

Originally posted by Drexster
For ANYONE that doupts the power of the G5 chips, it's very simple and it comes down to this... go to an apple store and try one... the 64 amds don't even come close to the speed and power, because it's not all about the rated mhz (as we all know very well from pentium)
i've pitted both against each other (similar setup for both machines but amd had better video card)

Look, I'm a Mac owner, but comments like this really grate me.

The dual G5 2x2 (I used to own one) is a fast machine, but saying A64s -- especially FX51/53s (Opertons, essentially) "don't even come close" is completely wrong. In many cases, the A64 machine will beat the dual G5.

If you like Apple, that's cool, but don't spout misinformation about competing technologies to make Apple's case seem stronger. That doesn't do anyone any favors.

[richcz3]

Apple will get 64Bits in their OS.
I can not imagine the Apple accepting a 64Bit Windows OS to be out for a significant amount of time before responding in kind. When the G5 base grows in appreciable numbers I am sure Jobs will break out with a his marketing media play, benchmarks and all.

richcz3

[Blackstripe]

Originally posted by richcz3
Apple will get 64Bits in their OS.
I can not imagine the Apple accepting a 64Bit Windows OS to be out for a significant amount of time before responding in kind. When the G5 base grows in appreciable numbers I am sure Jobs will break out with a his marketing media play, benchmarks and all.

richcz3

Yes, eventually OSX will be 64-bit, probably when G4s are almost entirely eliminated from Apple's lineup. Apple will have a tough time maintaining both 32b and 64b code forks for seperate versions of its OS. Heck, even MS, with its massive war chest, doesn't have a GA version of 64b Windows XP available, although it's rumored to be coming reasonably soon.

Then again, 64b processors have never been mainstream in the x86 world until very recently, so that goes a long way in explaining things.

[motoxpress]

First let me preference this with the fact that I am typing this from a Dual 1.8 G5 so, I have daily experience with it.

G5s are an awesome improvement over the G4 legacy. much quicker and quieter. I am glad to be working on one but, they are not as fast as they are marketed to be. a Dual Xeon will still kick their tails in Photoshop and AE. The 2.5 will make a difference in that however but, the 800mhz FSB Xeons are coming soon and the Opteron is a major force to be reckoned with.

Regarding the announcement..yawn. It's very incremental. They have had a year to work on this and they still have second-class video cards. While the G5 is an awesome video editor, it's missing out in the post-effects end of things.

Personally, I have to use both platforms and prefer it this way.as they both have strengths and weaknesses in production.

3D/Effects = Windows (linux is coming up fast though).

Video editing = either

Print = Mac (windows has made major inroads but the mac is still the delight of most designers)

My take

GL

[Blackstripe]

George, I agree with your viewpoint entirely. I used to have a dual G5, and I know full well how fast the machines are, which is to say very fast.

That said, Apple's marking is way too exaggerated for its own good.

[richcz3]

I feel a bit nutty in that today I bought an AMD64 3400 sysytem for use in a 32Bit OS. I could have purchesd 2 32Bit sysems. I guess it's the archtectural gains in speed. But I fully realize that by the time WinXP64 gets out I'll be slipping from mid to lower end. :hmm: I expect the same for early G5 enthusiasts. There is the speed gain but the full potential will take longer to realize.

I do not believe Jobs will sit idely by and wait for G5's to reach critical mass. The advantage Apple has is control over some pretty popular apps. Porting those to 64Bit would present a marketing win. From a developers perspective, I think Jobs would have a field day. I think Apples virtual lock on hardware makes an easier transition more plausible. The only program I've heard for consideration for 64Bit on the WinXP side is UT2k4 :rolleyes:

richcz3

[martinw]

I'm not quite sure why anyone would rave about the liquid cooling. In the G4 days one of the good points of the Mac was that the CPU used so little power compared with a PC, meaning compact systems and low power requirements. Now it need liquid cooling? Not really a selling point IMHO. Maybe they were only getting 2.2GHz regular CPUs out of IBM, so were forced to go with exotic cooling to get to 2.5?

Secondly, it looks like the G5 is running out of headroom. If you check Apple's own benchmarks, the speedup of the 2.5s over 2.0s are in the range 8-15% only. The problem here is most likely memory latency, which is becoming a real bottleneck.

As for performance relative to PCs, well it all depends on your application. Code that blasts through compact arrays of single precision floating point numbers can run really well on G5+Altivec (eg Photoshop filters, video processing - it's no coincidence that the benchmarks chosen by Apple are mostly of this type.) Stuff like 3d, which uses double precision and more integer code, as well more complex data structures, loses out to the PC side, partly because of the latency issues. 3d benchmarks are, by no coincidence, absent from Apple's page.

So, as usual, it's worth all depends what your application is.

[Sieb]

Funny.. Not to long ago, Mac users were touting how MHz didn't matter to them. Now ever since Macs have entered the GHz realm, it seems like Mac users won't be satisfied until they are running every app on a 10GHz Mac and outperforming PCs by 10 fold..

On a note, it would help if the developers of the applications would actually update their apps to take advantage of the PPC970 which is far superior to Pentiums, even moreso now that it has a 64bit ready BSD core running ontop... Wait.. no, its all gotta be Apples fault..

90% of the time, apps on PCs are going to run faster due to the SSE(2) and other optimizations coded into them. I don't know of anyone doing that with Mac apps yet (mainly since the 970 is so different than the G4). The Power4 chip (predecessor to the 970) regularly stomps the Xeon performance wise, so its not like its a crappy chip. As I have said in length in the other mac thread, you can't justafiably compare the PPC to Pentiums, their developments are based on two completely different schools of thought.

[thedaemon]

hey apple, where's the quadro?? :thumbsup:

[ThePrintMaster]

As much as I love a mac, ole Stevie boy is just running around pissing people off.

I mean Adobe already stopped supporting and porting Premiere to the mac in lieu of a more successful FCP for their machine.

And now, here comes motion. A direct stab at after effects. Now, from what I read and the experience I have with apple products, motion is going to be stupid easy to use and incredibly powerful.

Point of this being, sure, premiere for PC may run faster than premiere for mac ( or at least used to ) But I assure you, motion on a G5 will blow the doors off of any AFX running PC. I understand this is comparing apples to oranges, however, apple has the advantage in this realm.

Sadly that will be the only realm apple will win with but oh what a good realm it is.

Oh, and who really expected a 3ghz G5 by now anyway? And dont complain about apple being the only culprit in deceptive marketing. Major corporations make big promises all the time but never deliver. I wouldnt really want 3ghz to be in existence right now anyway. If you bought a dual 2ghz G5 a year ago wouldnt you be pretty pissed that 1 year later, there was a 50% faster chip out that theyre paying the same amount you paid for yours?

On my PC I built a little less than a year ago, Ive got a 3ghz. Id be pissed if there were 4.5ghz machines out right now. But if memory serves, It only goes up to 3.4ghz right about now. So did you REALLY expect apple to crank out that much?

If you did, you can paint "NAIVE" on your forehead so you can let the rest of us know not to play with you in the sandbox.

[parallax]

Reality check:

After Effects will not be dropped on the mac, as there is too much money to be made. On top of that, i just got back from an Apple demo, and really, i too thought motion would be all that and then some, but for the motion graphics professional, motion-after effects is really a no-contest situation.
Motion, great engine BTW,great interface and really speady, relies too much on behaviours presets and stock material. Complex broadcast graphics need a different approach, or at least the depth of After Effects.
You could say i was a bit disappointed.

[richcz3]

ThePrintMaster
You do bring up a good point on the speed increase. The PC side is still in a 6 month cycle which lately is only bringing incremental speed increases. I do not think that Apple would benefit from adopting speed stepping like the PC side. It's a double edged sword which could alienate its users.

At the same time, the speed mindset is out there. For those who put off buying a G5 in anticipation of a 3GHz model at this point, may be put off by the current speed offering.

Water cooled. That says allot. From one side, its says innovative cooling solution has gone main stream. From the other its says overclocked hot. I don't expect the 3Ghz to be water cooled unless Steve misses his internal timeline.

richcz3

[log0n]

I thought the 3ghz G5 claim was supposed to be by this year's end (Nov-Dec 2004).

Either way, I just ordered a dual 2.5 + dual 23" LCDs for work. I'm happy :buttrock:

Btw, 2.5ghz machines are going to be delivered beginning of July for those interested.

[ThePrintMaster]

Originally posted by parallax
Reality check:

After Effects will not be dropped on the mac, as there is too much money to be made. On top of that, i just got back from an Apple demo, and really, i too thought motion would be all that and then some, but for the motion graphics professional, motion-after effects is really a no-contest situation.
Motion, great engine BTW,great interface and really speady, relies too much on behaviours presets and stock material. Complex broadcast graphics need a different approach, or at least the depth of After Effects.
You could say i was a bit disappointed.

and they said premiere wouldnt be dropped on the mac either...after all...macs are video editing machines....but apple futzed around and developed something way better after 2 or 3 versions and what did adobe do? drop premiere.

You let apple make 2 or 3 versions of motion, make it work like a dream like they do with everything else, and watch mac AFX decline...and i promise you...adobe will drop AFX...i give it 3 or 4 years.

[Drexster]

In the end though, it really wont matter anyways if adobe drops after effects... cuse look at premiere in comparison to fcp it really sucks, i used to use premiere for everything on my ol' 9600/300, and then i started using fcp at school on some new g4s at the time and i greeted the new app with open arms and now it's grown into an industry standard. Practically no production houses use premiere, and broadcast is even done on fcp (CBC in canada uses FCP) if motion does the same and adobe does the same for afx, who really cares? wouldn't you use the best app to get the job done anyways?

Adobe needs to rethink there mac support. i havn't seen that great of updates for afx and the g5. where as all of apples production apps are optimized for it.
Now lets just hope we don't loose photoshop, but that would never happen (i hope)
:thumbsup:

[Drexster]

ohh almost forgot,
if you check apple's web site for the g5 www.apple.com/g5
they actualy do have "benchmarks" for rendering in lightwave. and i dunno about anybody else but, when it comes aroudn to trusting benchmarks on corporate web site i take apples word over intel, or amd.
Especially with the whole mhz myth intel grew up on, and hyperthreading? come on... from what i've experience "emulated" multiprocessing only slows things down (at least when it comes to rendering).

:hmm:

[richcz3]

I don't believe any one of them. It's best to take all benchmark postings with a grain of salt. Even so called independent sites. I have no reason to believe one over the other. They all play off the best scenarios and only put their best foot forward; They have to.

Currently nVidia and ATI are taking the cake when it comes to playing numbers and offering misleading info. I don't expect either one to let up because the stakes are so high.

truth in advertising...what does that mean? :D


richcz3

[Pixlmonky]

I can first hand say that hyperthreading is not myth. I rendered a scene in studio max at about 3 min a frame. Then I turned on Hyperthreading and the scene took 2 min. No other apps running. The myth is that it only helps when running multiple apps and junk like that. I have seen it speed up single apps that are written to take advantge of it.

As far as benchmarking.....They all lie. Either go to an independent source (there are some good ones) or bench it yourself. The other prob with the benching....How many times have you seen a bench that measures what you use on a daily basis? How fast can I rotate around a full shaded mesh and is it smooth? I want to see real tests.


About believing Apple over others.... I have never seen groups of people fired from AMD or Intel for false advertising (ie. Worlds first supercomputer). I do recall a section of the add staff were let go for that one when it bit them in the ass.

all in all, they all lie.

[status quo]

ohh almost forgot,
if you check apple's web site for the g5 www.apple.com/g5
they actualy do have "benchmarks" for rendering in lightwave. and i dunno about anybody else but, when it comes aroudn to trusting benchmarks on corporate web site i take apples word over intel, or amd.
Especially with the whole mhz myth intel grew up on, and hyperthreading? come on... from what i've experience "emulated" multiprocessing only slows things down (at least when it comes to rendering).


Hyperthreading is god.

when u find some good windows apps that support it. man do they fly. ie heavy video editing. mega speed boost.

the new mac processors are just OC'd. water cooling says alot.

[Sieb]

Hyperthreading will only come into play with apps written to support dual procs. Having a good subsystem to take advantage of HT helps alot too. HT is awsome, I have to doubts about it. But you also have to take into consideration the various levels of optimization used by the x86.

As for Apples G5s, the PPC970 is the most optimized chips out of the bunch, as well as running the coolest and with the least power consumption. IA-64s and Xeons are the only chips in its ballpark. Its just up to developers to make use of the chip though. As with everything Apple, its evolution/adaptation is slower than PCs.

And the new G5s just use Heatpipes, not water cooling. Nothing new here, move on..

Funny how no one complains (or notices) when Intel comes out with processors that are only (speed)bumped 200-400MHz.... But when it comes to Macs, WHOA! Watch Out! If they don't change the world with every revision released, people are on the verge of rioting!:rolleyes:

I can always count on the Mac community to entertain me. :D

[Les t]

I just want to thank everyone for writing their thoughts. I myself am a devout mac man, but am looking at having to get a PC for all my 3d stuff. I am still a student learning Maya.. for the first semester we were learning on g4's, but now they have switched us over to PC's - no idea what sort they are tho. And the difference is huge... and the more Mac people I speak to, the more they tell me to get a PC - as much as it kills any of them to admit it.

So Mac users here, would you suggest getting a PC for Maya? Besides the fact that they are about half the price and I am a struggling student.

Les.

[shehbahn]

read this :
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,107492,00.asp

[Drexster]

Well Les T, to tell you the truth i myself was in the same situation, i started 3d animation this year in september and i got myself a computer, some how by talking to my mom and borrowing 1k from her and some other funds i had and aquired i was able to get myself a g5 with a 21" cinema, top that with my ol' monitor it makes for a sweet setup.

The G5 doesn't even compare to the g4 chip, it's a completely new computer architecture, right down to the i/o system.
With the 9800/pro i run one monitor at 1680 x 1050 and the other at 1152 x 870.
Personaly i love my g5, i havn't come near any computer that's anything like it, and i can fire off 2 renders at a time no problem and still animate in maya, i've even playbasted while render and gotten smooth speeds (really dense scene too, many palm trees)
Anyway
unless you have alot of money to spend on a pc to get one that matches the g5, i'd get the g5.:hmm:

[Drexster]

hah, hyper-threading makes me laugh... i seriously chuckle whenever the topic comes up...
emulated multiprocessing doesn't do what people think it does... it doesn't add another processor or increase the speed of the processor it increases the efficiency of the processor. end pentiums rated at 3.06 ghz arn't actualy proccessing at that speed in cycles. and if you've heard of multithreading... it's because apple has been using it since it's grey g3s which, pentium is now using the concept of a more "organised" cpu.

oh and by the way if you look around for some comparison charts i've seen them at cgchannel somewhere.
and it's a comparison of render speeds for a bunch of different machines that can use HT, and the HT render are clearly slower, by like 2 seconds from those with it turned off.
But i'm sure it still helps in other situations

[Srek]

Originally posted by Drexster
hah, hyper-threading makes me laugh... i seriously chuckle whenever the topic comes up...
emulated multiprocessing doesn't do what people think it does... it doesn't add another processor or increase the speed of the processor it increases the efficiency of the processor. end pentiums rated at 3.06 ghz arn't actualy proccessing at that speed in cycles. and if you've heard of multithreading... it's because apple has been using it since it's grey g3s which, pentium is now using the concept of a more "organised" cpu.

oh and by the way if you look around for some comparison charts i've seen them at cgchannel somewhere.
and it's a comparison of render speeds for a bunch of different machines that can use HT, and the HT render are clearly slower, by like 2 seconds from those with it turned off.
But i'm sure it still helps in other situations

Please don't mix up hyperthreading and multithreading. Multithreading has been in use for decades, on Windows systems it started with NT 3.1 back in the 80s. Hyperthreading is "just" a way to use a CPU more efficently with software that supports multithreading. Especialy for rendering the benefits are noticable. i never got less then 5% speedup and mostly over 10%, up to 20%. I have yet to see a rendering benchmark where a machine with HT off is faster then with it turned on. I would be interested in your source on this.
Cheers
Srek

[Tarrbot]

Drexter states: and if you've heard of multithreading... it's because apple has been using it since it's grey g3s which, pentium is now using the concept of a more "organised" cpu.
I think you have something confused here. I'll play devil's advocate and make an assumption that the G3s used multithreading efficiently.

<devil's advocate>

It is laughable that Apple would do this and then have an OS that was single-threaded and unable to take advantage of the architecture.

</devil's advocate>

Yes, it's true. Apple had an OS that was no more efficient than MS DOS prior to OS X. Prior to this OS release, the Mac OS had very limited multithreading capabilities while Pentiums (vanilla, circa 1996) have been doing multithreading and multiprocessing for years. 430HX motherboards, anyone? Yes, I realize OS 9.x had some multithreaded capabilities but this was on a very limited basis.

Not only this, but the Pentium Pro was released in 1995 which was dual-processor and very very multithreaded capable.

[log0n]

Originally posted by Srek
Please don't mix up hyperthreading and multithreading. Multithreading has been in use for decades, on Windows systems it started with NT 3.1 back in the 80s. Hyperthreading is "just" a way to use a CPU more efficently with software that supports multithreading. Especialy for rendering the benefits are noticable. i never got less then 5% speedup and mostly over 10%, up to 20%. I have yet to see a rendering benchmark where a machine with HT off is faster then with it turned on. I would be interested in your source on this.
Cheers
Srek


The first version of NT came out in 1993.

[Drexster]

i wasn't confusing multithreading and hyperthreading, i was saying apple has been using multithreading successfully since it's early g3's, and that pentium is now need to use some form of technology to increase the effectiveness of there processor.
i don't understand why people don't realize that pentiums are slow, and i know just for saying that there are now going to be tons of people arguing "ohh no pentiums rock man... there so fast" but really they arn't nearly as fast as they claim to be, proof is, a 2.5 amd is faster then a 3.4 p4..., and a 2.5ghz g5 is faster then 3.4 p4, it's not very arguable. intel thought they could increase sales by increasing the clock speed of the processors, and they did, but again, that itself just aint enough for overall speed increases.

[richcz3]

This thread is de-evolving into a PC vs MAC contention.

Don't make me break out with some Amiga info :D

richcz3

[Drexster]

and dammit apple doesn't use anything like hyper-threading, they use multithreading in there os structure... which has allowed mac user to have more then there fair share of open apps at a time (it's common to have more then 10 apps running on osX at a time)
and sure windows has tried to implement multithreading but personally i wouldn't say they were all too successful.
apple was the creator of the multitasking os
again, i expect to see tons of posts arguing this

[Drexster]

good ol' amiga, i used to have one of those (back when they were cool, but i still think they are!)
isn't amiga coming out with a new public os? version 5 or something?

[Srek]

Originally posted by log0n
The first version of NT came out in 1993.
Ups, i stand corrected. They started development in 89 and shipped somwhere in the middle of 93.
Sorry
Srek

[Srek]

Originally posted by Drexster
i wasn't confusing multithreading and hyperthreading, i was saying apple has been using multithreading successfully since it's early g3's, and that pentium is now need to use some form of technology to increase the effectiveness of there processor.
i don't understand why people don't realize that pentiums are slow, and i know just for saying that there are now going to be tons of people arguing "ohh no pentiums rock man... there so fast" but really they arn't nearly as fast as they claim to be, proof is, a 2.5 amd is faster then a 3.4 p4..., and a 2.5ghz g5 is faster then 3.4 p4, it's not very arguable. intel thought they could increase sales by increasing the clock speed of the processors, and they did, but again, that itself just aint enough for overall speed increases.

Apple marketing was certainly effective on you ;)
The current 2.5 GHz G5 are about as fast as the fastest P4 which in turn are about as fast as the most current AMD 64. This is over all. Different processors have different strengthes and weaknesses. If you only compare the strenghtes of one to the weaknesses of the other you will get a completely biased and irreal result.
The current OGL implementation of OS X is way inferior to the implementation in Windows, while streaming medias are handled by a G5 at a blazing pace i have never seen on a windows PC.
I had a good lough seeing the LW rendering benchmark Apple has put up to show the graphics speed of the G5. The only thing it shows is that someone was able to tweak a LW scene so that the G5 processed it faster then a PC. Nothing to do with graphics speed, only raw processing power. But hey, thats marketing to you :)
Sometimes i realy wonder why Apple is making easily falsified false claims so often (fastest PC, first 64 Bit Workstation etc.). It's not as if there current systems would need this kind of bullshit. They are among the best engineered systems i have ever seen and certainly competitive speed and feature wise.

Cheers
Srek

[Saurus]

I think Drexster is lost:rolleyes:

[Drexster]

i thikn i may be lost as well... long nights animating...

anyway i just wish others would be as excited for the g5 as i am...
and i can see that some are, i'm sure that once pixar is done converting all of there workstation and perhaps there render farm to the g5 people will realise what all this hype is about.

Hasn't anyone seen the Virginia Tech supercomputer? 3 fastest in the world... and cheapest too.

as for the hyper threading i only speak from seeing my teachers render times and what i've read on the net.

[motoxpress]

Originally posted by Drexster
i'm sure that once pixar is done converting all of there workstation and perhaps there render farm to the g5 people will realise what all this hype is about.

Now I know you are lost. There is no way they are switching over to the G5 exclusively. That is just not gonna happen.

GL

[Guybrush]

http://cgw.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=18&ARTICLE_ID=168408

This new is from February 13, 2003...i dont think they build a renderfarm every year...may be wrong...

[shehbahn]

multithreading (aka multitasking) : started in the good old 70s on Unix mainframes. not new - except we had to go through the dark ages for 15 years thanks to a certain MS-DOS. Apple's OSes have had (modern-ish) multitasking kernels since OS 5, in the mid-80s.

hyperthreading : very very different technology. it's based on the backwards engineering premise that a Pentium is in fact already several CPUs masquerading as a single entity behind the superscalar pipeline (tm).

one of the side effects of this heavy handed design is that the P4 has some very nasty quirks with its pre-fetch queue and the internal bus to the FPUs. do some look-ups on denormal underflows to get an example of the penalties your application can suffer. AMDs for instance don't have that kind of problems, but suffer from slower FPUs.

>i dont think they build a renderfarm every year...may be wrong...

every major studio is constantly revising their technology development strategy. this kind of article is just PR for whoever supplied the hardware so they can cash on the brand name of a famous buyer (Michael Jordan only wears Nikes ! it's true they are the best !).

[log0n]

Originally posted by richcz3
This thread is de-evolving into a PC vs MAC contention.

Don't make me break out with some Amiga info :D

richcz3

Amiga pwnz! :buttrock:

[gr8spangle]

Originally posted by Drexster
and dammit apple doesn't use anything like hyper-threading, they use multithreading in there os structure... which has allowed mac user to have more then there fair share of open apps at a time (it's common to have more then 10 apps running on osX at a time)

I think you have confused multitasking with multithreading. Though the 2 concepts are related they are 2 very different terminologies. While multitasking is a very general term to describe being able to run several OS processes simultaneously (i.e. having 10 apps running at once) this has been around since the days of DOS. The type of multitasking we had back then on DOS and on Apple's OS up until 9.x was what is called "cooperative multitasking" meaning each application had to behave nicely and agree to release the CPU periodically so that neighboring apps could have their turn.

The great advance of "preemptive multitasking" came much later in OS X and WindowsNT (though preemptive has been around since early Unix days, we won't get into that). This describes how the OS can effectively timeshare the CPU in a "round-robin" fashion by telling an app "ok you've had your time, now let someone else have their turn". And so the OS has much tighter control over the CPU.

Now, getting back to multi-threading, this has absolutely nothing to do with running many apps or windows at once. An "application" to an OS is represented by a "process" which has its own dedicated memory space and which should be protected so other apps cannot write to that space. Within each "process" there can be multiple "threads" of execution in which each thread shares the same memory space of its "process". So this would allow a web browser for example, to be downloading a file at the same time as you continue browsing, since the GUI itself runs in its own thread.

Well that was a bit more than I intended to write, but I hope that clears things up a little. Just understand that a single app can be "multithreaded" and that "multiple windows" does not equal "multithreaded".

and sure windows has tried to implement multithreading but personally i wouldn't say they were all too successful.
apple was the creator of the multitasking os
again, i expect to see tons of posts arguing this

I'd say they were very successful, and WAY BEFORE Apple ever was.

[Sieb]

Here is a quicky about multi-tasking (coop/pre-emptive) and SMP/multi-threading.

http://hjem.get2net.dk/rune_moeller_barnkob/multitasking.html

Multi-tasking has been around since Unix. Windows implimented it post DOS (win95 went Pre-emptive) . Mac switched to Pre-emptive like everyone else when it switched to OSX.

Everyone ok now? Good, new subject..

[log0n]

BeOS is the champ of all things multitasking/threading/processors. Doubling your CPU quantity would effectively double your performance (everything upon everything was threaded). Probably one of the reasons why it's still thriving on the 'underground'.

[shehbahn]

correction : i should have been more accurate and reference pre-emptive multitasking. i can't remember who started selling the first cooperative OSes but it's never really been a very bright idea...

>I'd say they were very successful, and WAY BEFORE Apple ever was.

actually - back in the early 80s Apple was selling a computer named LISA with an OS that did feature preemptive multitasking. it disapeared from the Mac OS until X for a number of rather dumb reasons.

on the MS side, this only appeared with 95, although for various reasons i'll argue that Win98 is the first half decent kernel. compared to a decent Unix, even XP is still rather sloppy with dumbed down memory protection and fairly crude process management. from observation, kernel slicing appears not quite as efficient as Linux, especially on multiple CPU machines.

[elvis]

Originally posted by thedaemon
hey apple, where's the quadro?? :thumbsup:

Mate, I'm with you. Stuff the MHz wars... where's my decent 3D video performance???

[Tarrbot]

Drexster states:apple was the creator of the multitasking os
Uh, "multitasking" is not "multithreading". Additionally, the problem here with older versions of Mac "multitasking" was that it just put processor speed on the open window. All other windows were basically dead to the CPU. This is called cooperative multitasking. This is why i stated old versions of Mac OS did not use multithreading. It was a single-threaded OS. About as "productive" as MS DOS in that respect.

Drexster states:and sure windows has tried to implement multithreading but personally i wouldn't say they were all too successful.
Not successful? Surely you jest. Had a bit too much of the Jobs Juice&reg; lately?

It's very very obvious you know next to nothing about Windows other than hearsay.

log0n states:BeOS is the champ of all things multitasking/threading/processors. Doubling your CPU quantity would effectively double your performance (everything upon everything was threaded). Probably one of the reasons why it's still thriving on the 'underground'.
Unfortunately, Be Inc was the champ in being dunderheaded. I enjoy BeOS but what sucks is knowing some of the apps that were coming down the pike when Be Inc decided the world was better off with BeIA. :rolleyes:

[imashination]

Whoopsie:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3797261.stm

[leuey]

Just to throw my $.02 into the fray here. My Amiga 3000 was a better (pre-emptive) multi-tasker/multi-threader on a single 68030 back in 1992 than any Mac available before OSX. The Mac's multi-tasking was pathetic and an utter embarrassment to Apple before OS X (which is great imo). Part of the reason Apple had to completely re-do their OS was b/c of the absolutely horrible, outdated, crappy multi-tasking ability.

As far as Gigaherz - it's rapidly becoming irrellevant w/ the educated comsumer. What matters are real-world benchmarks using the apps that you use. If you use After FX, check out the benchmarks on digitalproducer.com or some other 3rd party site that compares G5's to PIV's and Athlon64's/Opterons. Ditto for LW, Maya, etc. If you edit compare G5 Final Cut to PC Premier Pro (similar cost) - a bit apples to oranges but you can compare number of streams, realtime fx, etc.

That's all that really matters. Synthetic benchmarks are for scientists, and goofy ones like 45 Apple Optimized Photoshop filters in a row aren't really all that relevant either, are they?

Some other issues work into the mix - is your backend render farm a bunch of Opterons? Probably don't want to have your 3D workstations as G5's due to potential render inconsistencies. But overall just check the real world benchmarks on different reputable sites. It's not like the web is lacking in this. The days of looking at vendor provided benchmarks are (thankfully) over.

-Greg

[beaker]

Originally posted by leuey
Some other issues work into the mix - is your backend render farm a bunch of Opterons? Probably don't want to have your 3D workstations as G5's due to potential render inconsistencies. But overall just check the real world benchmarks on different reputable sites. It's not like the web is lacking in this. The days of looking at vendor provided benchmarks are (thankfully) over.

-Greg
This is not as big of a deal as it seems. I have worked at many places that have mixed SGI and intel back in the day. I know many large studios that were still doing that up untill about a year ago. You don't want to mix whole scenes rendered between your g5 and opteron boxes, but if you just put them into render groups working on separate scenes it will work just fine. Stuff like noise and anthing else that is randomly generated might not match from frame to frame otherwise.

You can even get inconsistantcies in renders between p3 and p4 boxes. Some people still have older p3 renderfarms with newer p4 boxes on their desks. With just a little forethough things will work out right.

[leuey]

Yeah - that can work. I just had some inconsistencies between Athlon and G5 renders (ye olde fractal noise issue) last month, and for simplicities sake I don't like to deal with it. But yeah - you can work around it. My thought is if you have G5's as your workstations and Opterons (or whatever) as your farm (which is more likely the case) then your test renders may be different than the actual renders.

-Greg


Originally posted by beaker
This is not as big of a deal as it seems. I have worked at many places that have mixed SGI and intel back in the day. I know many large studios that were still doing that up untill about a year ago. You don't want to mix whole scenes rendered between your g5 and opteron boxes, but if you just put them into render groups working on separate scenes it will work just fine. Stuff like noise and anthing else that is randomly generated might not match from frame to frame otherwise.

You can even get inconsistantcies in renders between p3 and p4 boxes. Some people still have older p3 renderfarms with newer p4 boxes on their desks. With just a little forethough things will work out right.

[MadMax]

And to think, all Apple had to do was use AMD parts and technology to get where they are with the G5................

[Srek]

Originally posted by MadMax
And to think, all Apple had to do was use AMD parts and technology to get where they are with the G5................
Let's not forget that Apple is after all a hardware company that lives from selling it. Using of the shelves PC hardware for their machines would be a sure way out of business.
Cheers
Srek

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Srek
Let's not forget that Apple is after all a hardware company that lives from selling it. Using of the shelves PC hardware for their machines would be a sure way out of business.
Cheers
Srek


True, but perhaps you misunderstood what I meant?

Apple is using AMD chipsets, and AMD technology in the G5. Interestingly enough, they avoid comparing to AMD when they publish their tests.............

[beaker]

Also half the developers (ones using Carbon) would have to rewrite all their apps again and move them to Cocoa. Which would surely crush the mac platform. Everyone allready just finished rewriting stuff for osx over the last 5 years. Making them do it again would be suicide.

[Sieb]

Apple is using AMD chipsets, and AMD technology in the G5. Interestingly enough, they avoid comparing to AMD when they publish their tests.............

What keeps Apples seperate from the PCs is the PPC970. The PPC architecture is completely different than x86, and more powerful. Changing the entire Apple application base to x86 code is far from cost effective. Not to mention, that there would be no Apple if they switched to an x86 platform. Just because they use AMD chipsets doesn't mean they work the same as the ones in PCs.

If you want true comparisons between processors, look for comparisons that include the Power4 chip (IBMs predecessor to Apples 970). In that respect, only the Xeons and IA-64s can match up with it.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Sieb
What keeps Apples seperate from the PCs is the PPC970. The PPC architecture is completely different than x86, and more powerful. Changing the entire Apple application base to x86 code is far from cost effective. Not to mention, that there would be no Apple if they switched to an x86 platform.


I don't recall having said anything about going to x86. Only that Apple is relying on PC technology for it's G5.

Nor did I say anything about relative performance of 970 or Power4 chips vs. X86.


Just because they use AMD chipsets doesn't mean they work the same as the ones in PCs.


Actually they work EXACTLY the same. the chip doesn't magically change because it is in a different motherboard.

[MadMax]

It is interesting to note that this new G5 is using both extreme water cooling AND heatpipes to cool this.

Less a reason to rejoice, more a reason to be gravely concerned if you ask me.

That this extreme moster of a cooling system appears to be required to run the new G5 is disturbing to say the least.

G5 cooling pics (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=501)

[beaker]

Intel is having the same problem with their 90nm Prescot chips. AMD is soon moving to 90nm, and they will have the same issues. This is an all around concern for all chip makers, not just for apple/ibm.

http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1083010432.html
http://www.eedesign.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=19201699

[kromekat]

Well despite all the hype, naysayers, bullsh*tters and just plain ars*y PC Windozees, and Mac Fanatics, I went ahead and orderd a dual 2.5 with a 256mb 9800XT and 2Gig or RAM* (*not from Apple I might add!)

I hope the liquid cooling is not going to be a problem (it would be the first ever in the 6 Macs I have owned - and still do for that matter - all working fine!)

Whatever way you look at it, the high end G5's are way, way faster than any Mac preceding them, and that is the important thing! - sure, they are faster than many P4s from benchmarks I have seen, and many of the Athlons. Overclocked Xeons are quite a bit faster etc etc. but so what! - My current top speed Mac is a single 1Ghz, and apart from heavy radiosity.HDRI and long animation renders, it's easily fast enough for virtually everyting I do on a daily basis - having said that, having 5 times the GHz at my disposal, and then allowing for 64bit optimisations, this new Mac should rock like all the others did before it, and whatever the current Ghz race is at, and no matter who is at Pole Position - OSX is a far better environment to work in IMNSHO! :buttrock:

[Saurus]

Originally posted by kromekat
Well despite all the hype, naysayers, bullsh*tters and just plain ars*y PC Windozees, and Mac Fanatics, I went ahead and orderd a dual 2.5 with a 256mb 9800XT and 2Gig or RAM* (*not from Apple I might add!)

I hope the liquid cooling is not going to be a problem (it would be the first ever in the 6 Macs I have owned - and still do for that matter - all working fine!)

Whatever way you look at it, the high end G5's are way, way faster than any Mac preceding them, and that is the important thing! - sure, they are faster than many P4s from benchmarks I have seen, and many of the Athlons. Overclocked Xeons are quite a bit faster etc etc. but so what! - My current top speed Mac is a single 1Ghz, and apart from heavy radiosity.HDRI and long animation renders, it's easily fast enough for virtually everyting I do on a daily basis - having said that, having 5 times the GHz at my disposal, and then allowing for 64bit optimisations, this new Mac should rock like all the others did before it, and whatever the current Ghz race is at, and no matter who is at Pole Position - OSX is a far better environment to work in IMNSHO! :buttrock:

U go girl!!

[MadMax]

Originally posted by kromekat
OSX is a far better environment to work in IMNSHO! :buttrock:


Oh I wouldn't completely disagree with that. I personally hate windows.

However I find Linux more than acceptable in the OS behavioral department.

I personally don't care for the ridiculous bubble effect and wasted desktop resources that OSX uses.

There is a point where useless cute factor goes too far.

[elvis]

Originally posted by MadMax
There is a point where useless cute factor goes too far.

Agreed. Meanwhile my window manager (XFCE4) and x-server together consume all of about 15MB of RAM, which includes start menus, system resource monitors, multiple desktop switching (and/or multiple monitors) and a whole host of other useful features sans-bloat. (Excusing my MacOSX theme, of course. But it only adds a few KB at worst :) ).

http://www.xfce.org/

"... and verything goes faster!"

From memory the MacOSX aqua fluff consumes well over 3-4 times that memory footprint. Beautiful yes, but still bloated.

[kromekat]

Originally posted by Saurus
U go girl!!

er.. thanks! ;) <------ man

[Drexster]

what the hell are you guys talking about? wasted resources? have you looked at how windows distributes resources? and how it wastes "valuable" resources.

OS X with the dock and the finder take less then 15 mbs of memory, and zero cpu when not "in use" in other words unless i'm using the dock and opening and closing tons of windows through expose (which is awesome!) i'm using less then a fraction of my available cpu.

[splintah]

well i think its a way better solution having a whisper quiet watercooling solution

than having those more than just annoying high rpm fans



i´d love to add watercooling to my system just to make it quiet
but i lack the money

[status quo]

heh watercooling is noisey. you still need a fan.

plus the maintenance is a pain. always needing to check if you have enough water.

[ThePrintMaster]

i dont think its water...i think its something else...

on the mac site if memory serves they call it a "cooling fluid."

this could just be a fancy way of saying water but...who knows.

Besides, factory jobs are going to be way better than home jobs. Surely theyve done whatever it takes to make sure it stays self sufficient. It would be a terrible idea for apple to make people add water as needed. :shrug:

[Tarrbot]

Even if it's purified or distilled water, it could still be a heatpipe, which is technically... "watercooling".

Heatpipes have been in many devices for ages. I believe the original Playstation had one.

[Tarrbot]

Hasn't anyone seen the Virginia Tech supercomputer? 3 fastest in the world... and cheapest too.
BTW, Virginia Tech's system isn't even on this month's list (http://www.top500.org/list/2004/06/) . Sorry to inform you.

Additionally, Intel procs inhabit 268 places on that list with the majority of those being Xeon and Itanium2 clusters.

... For the record, that is. :wip:

[dmeyer]

BTW, Virginia Tech's system isn't even on this month's list (http://www.top500.org/list/2004/06/) . Sorry to inform you.

VT's cluster dropped off temporarily as they switch to rachmount Xserves.

The new Mach 5 system will likely debut at #2.

US Army to get 1,566-Xserve G5 supercomputer
June 21, 2004 - 19:47 EDT** COLSA, a U.S. Army contractor based in Huntsville, Alabama, today announced the purchase of 1,566 Xserve G5s to build a new supercomputer expected to be one of the fastest in the world. The supercomputer, named "MACH 5," is expected to deliver a peak performance capability of more than 25 TFlops/second at a cost of US$5.8 million and will be used to model the complex aero-thermodynamics of hypersonic flight for the US Army.

"We expect MACH 5 to rank as one of the most powerful supercomputers on the planet," said Dr Anthony DiRienzo, executive vice president at COLSA Corporation. "According to the November 2003 Top 500 supercomputer list, it would rank second only to Japan's $350 million Earth Simulator computer at less than two percent of the cost. We evaluated PC-based proposals from other vendors but none came close to delivering either the price, performance or manageability of the Apple Xserve G5."

"Apple is honored that COLSA chose the Xserve G5 to build their supercomputer cluster," said Philip Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing. "The ground breaking 64-bit performance and incredible I/O capabilities of the Xserve G5, combined with the reliability and scalability of our UNIX-based Mac OS X Server software deliver high performance computing solutions perfect for anyone looking to cluster from two to thousands of nodes, at an unbeatable price."

Mach 5 is expected to be up and running for the Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) division of the US Army Research and Development Command by late Fall.

Sorry to inform you.
:rolleyes:

[Tarrbot]

Wow. I'm a day off on news. Must be that I'm stupid or something.

I guess the important thing here is that it no longer is Virginia Tech's cluster and that the VT cluster is in limbo for the moment.

#2 is only speculation at this point, though.

[Drexster]

what are you guys talking about?
it's not "water" cooling, it's simply a thermally conductive fluid, and no it never needs maintenance.... and noo, it's not noisy... i know first hand. just the fact that the g5 has 9 fans should tell you that it's not noisy, why would it be? do you think all 9 fans are running at full rpm?! that would be stupid, there are 9 fans because the g5 is split up in thermal zones, each fan cools down it's thermal zone and the airflow is limited to each zone. each zone is monitored by the system for heat and as heat increase in say the pci-x area (when playing unreal 2004 for 5 hours straight for instance) the fans speed up slightly to compensate for the thermal increase... as for the liquid cooling it's not the same as what modders do for liquid cooling, all it is, is a circulation system over the cpus, and it makes a huge difference in heat desipation.
:banghead:

[MadMax]

as for the liquid cooling it's not the same as what modders do for liquid cooling, all it is, is a circulation system over the cpus, and it makes a huge difference in heat desipation.

In other words, EXACTLY the same thing that modders do.

A circulation system, (water and anti freeze) over the cpu's and makes a huge difference in heat dissipation.

So just exactly how do you think these are different? This I have to hear......

[ThePrintMaster]

i wonder if this is watercooled

http://www.apple.com/ipod/bmw/

[shehbahn]

same principle, just better than average technology. this is the G5 system :

http://www.cooligy.com/technology.html

[status quo]

when i say "water cooled" i don't mean tap water idiot :rolleyes:

any yes what ever type of "liquid" they choose it will need replacing more often than a fan?

and 9 fans? i don't care what you say thats gonna be hella noisey.

i'd rather have 2 faster fans than nine what if one fails? :)

EDIT: also

1 word - shuttle.

shuttle = owns anything apple has to offer.

EDIT AGAIN: what does the popularity of an ipod have to do with a computer?

[beaker]

when i say "water cooled" i don't mean tap water idiot :rolleyes:

any yes what ever type of "liquid" they choose it will need replacing more often than a fan?

and 9 fans? i don't care what you say thats gonna be hella noisey.

i'd rather have 2 faster fans than nine what if one fails? :)

EDIT: also

1 word - shuttle.

shuttle = owns anything apple has to offer.
Actually that is incorrect. 9 fans running at very low speeds is much quieter than 2 running at high speed. The G4 had this problem. Many audio people use macs and the g4 was extremely loud. That was one of the biggest complaints about the g4. The G5 is quiet as a mouse. We have 3 shuttles at the office and they are extremely loud with the 1 large fan in the back blowing at full speed.

[status quo]

my shuttle is silent :)

hard drive makes the most noise.

[status quo]

where did i say that 2 fans were quieter than 9?

i didn't.

unless your some kind of nutter the slight difference in DB etc makes little difference.

the G5 makes noise the shuttle makes noise. neither of them are disturbing.

[ThePrintMaster]

it only takes 3 decibels to be twice as loud as it was

ie 30db = 27dbx2

so just a few decibels is alot

[status quo]

where did you read that?

you must have a computer for a brain and microchips for ears.

i wish i could equait what i hear into a figure.

i've found more noisey rated systems quieter than silent systems.

[beaker]

where did i say that 2 fans were quieter than 9?

i didn't.

unless your some kind of nutter the slight difference in DB etc makes little difference.

the G5 makes noise the shuttle makes noise. neither of them are disturbing.You said:
"and 9 fans? i don't care what you say thats gonna be hella noisey.

i'd rather have 2 faster fans than nine what if one fails?"

Which says to me, 9 fans are really noisy and 2 fans would be quieter. Maybe I missunderstood you.

As for you the slight DB difference, have you ever worked with audio people? A few DB makes a huge difference to these guys. Certain powersupplies on the first revision of the G5 put out a slight noise that was only 1-2 DB and they were all up and arms about it. There are countless posts on the audio msg boards about this topic. Many sent back their power supplies 2-3 times to change it out because of this.

[ThePrintMaster]

where did you read that?

you must have a computer for a brain and microchips for ears.

i wish i could equait what i hear into a figure.

i've found more noisey rated systems quieter than silent systems.

other than taking a very in depth class on acoustics and digital audio. I offer you this

http://www.endpcnoise.com/cgi-bin/e/decibels.html

now its time to take your ass to class

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/dB.html




:thumbsup:

[status quo]

:rolleyes: do u even understand the term DBA and how this relates to human ears?

[log0n]

:rolleyes: do u even understand the term DBA and how this relates to human ears?

Based on this thread, I'm pretty sure you don't :thumbsup:

[ThePrintMaster]

why, yes, as a matter of fact, I do. But I am not going to get into a "who knows more and who can define more terms" argument with you.

You just asked where "i read that" in reference to 3 db being twice as loud. So I took the time out of my busy day to show you.

I was just pointing out that a few decibels make more of a difference than you were alluding to.

You should learn to relax a hair and not be the guy who is always right.

[Srek]

In other words, EXACTLY the same thing that modders do.

A circulation system, (water and anti freeze) over the cpu's and makes a huge difference in heat dissipation.

So just exactly how do you think these are different? This I have to hear......
Watercooling and heatpipes are similar but different. First of all Watercooling uses an electric pump while heatpipes work through evaporation by heat. Second, you can't build heatpipes easily yourself. In heatpipes a medium (usualy not water) is heated up evaporates and the vapor transports the heat to the radiator where it condenses back to fluid state. This limits the ways a heatpipe system can be installed. In a watercooling system they use water with additives (not antifreeze, you seldom need that in PCs) to prevent corrosion. The water is only heated not evaporated and a pump has to move it from source to radiator. This setup allows for multiple connected heatsources and for easy customization.
Heatpipes are usualy more efficent, more silent (no pump) and more reliable (no pump, no fittings) but can only be used by larger manufacturers since a heatpipe system has to match case and mobo (CPU position) exactly.
Shuttle and other manufacturers of small PCs use heatpipes for some time now and it is imho a very good choice for the G5 too.
Cheers
Srek

[MadMax]

I'm curious as to why you are quoting my comments about water cooling, and then going into heatpipes which I said nothing about.

[status quo]

I'm curious as to why you are quoting my comments about water cooling, and then going into heatpipes which I said nothing about.do they have a clue?

a heatpipe is just an aluminium or copper block to disspate heat.

a fan is a fan.

watercooling is watercooling. also would you like to provide a link to the exact liquid they use in these macs?

why, yes, as a matter of fact, I do. But I am not going to get into a "who knows more and who can define more terms" argument with you.
no thats not what i was saying means. it just proves that your arguement about DB is bull. to the human ear 3DB is NOT twice as loud. do a google search and stop blocking out what you don't want to see.

- the truth.

EDIT: and that endpcnoise? dude there just trying to sell that nexus case. i bet you bought one?

[Annuostivix]

status quo - your shuttle might be quiet, but isn't it something like 1.2 ghz with 256 megs of ram, if that...? It also has an external thing to deal with power and heat, doesn't it? All in all I was under the impression that cooling a shuttle was easy because they are fairly low power.

[status quo]

this shuttle here now.

2600+
1024mb pc 2700 crossair XMS
120GB WD
ti 4600
250W Silent X
LG DVD RW
wifi card in pci slot

and you can get quieter. i know of shuttles with fanless PSUs. i would like to get my hand on one of those PSUs.

EDIT: it just has a slim power cable.

status quo - your shuttle might be quiet, but isn't it something like 1.2 ghz with 256 megs of ram, if that...? It also has an external thing to deal with power and heat, doesn't it? All in all I was under the impression that cooling a shuttle was easy because they are fairly low power.do u even know what a shuttle is? :applause:

external thing? :)

and i don't hate macs. i just hate the users who fall for all this marketing crap.

[ThePrintMaster]

im sitting here wondering if you even know what youre arguing for or against at this point.

Reading the whole thread, it looks like youre just arguing for the sake of arguing. :cry: :banghead:

edit: corrected typos

[Vertizor]

a heatpipe is just an aluminium or copper block to disspate heat.

a fan is a fan.

watercooling is watercooling.
http://www.heatpipe.com/heatpipes.htm

From the website:
A traditional heat pipe is a hollow cylinder filled with a vaporizable liquid. A. Heat is absorbed in the evaporating section.

B. Fluid boils to vapor phase.

C. Heat is released from the upper part of cylinder to the environment; vapor condenses to liquid phase.

D. Liquid returns by gravity to the lower part of cylinder (evaporating section).


------
So yeah some liquid is involved with the heat-pipe tech.

[wallyjunior]

I love macs too, and use apple computers since my first computer, but recently the prices are to high here in Brazil, and I´m thinkin to buy a AMD machine. :banghead:

[status quo]

yeah i understand heatpipes. BUT its hyped up beyond belief

i bought a heatsink and fan with heatpipes for $20

i got a zalman video card heatsink for $30.

[Srek]

I'm curious as to why you are quoting my comments about water cooling, and then going into heatpipes which I said nothing about.
But you did

Originally Posted by Drexster
as for the liquid cooling it's not the same as what modders do for liquid cooling, all it is, is a circulation system over the cpus, and it makes a huge difference in heat desipation.



In other words, EXACTLY the same thing that modders do.

A circulation system, (water and anti freeze) over the cpu's and makes a huge difference in heat dissipation.

So just exactly how do you think these are different? This I have to hear......

You said that watercooling and heatpipes are the same which is incorrect.
Heatpipes are exactly the thing modders usualy don't do, since you can't create them easily by yourself.
Cheers
Srek

[Srek]

yeah i understand heatpipes. BUT its hyped up beyond belief

i bought a heatsink and fan with heatpipes for $20

i got a zalman video card heatsink for $30. I don't think they are hyped up. They have a big advantage in that they don't need any moving (read noisy) parts to transport large amounts of heat from a small surface to a big surface for dissipation. Also in contrast to watercooling they are completely maintainance free.

Cheers
Srek

[MadMax]

But you did


You said that watercooling and heatpipes are the same which is incorrect.
Heatpipes are exactly the thing modders usualy don't do, since you can't create them easily by yourself.
Cheers
Srek I said no such thing.

Look at the quote you are copying.

Originally Posted by Drexster
as for the liquid cooling it's not the same as what modders do for liquid cooling, all it is, is a circulation system over the cpus, and it makes a huge difference in heat desipation.

The new G5 has 2 distinct cooling systems. In this quote he is specifically referring to the liquid cooling that flows over the CPU's. No mention is made of the heatpipe system, which is completely different that is used on the underside of the motherboard according to pictures of it which were on an Apple site last week.

He said liquid cooling, I said liquid cooling. That is the only portion being commented on.

Absolutely no mention was made what so ever of the heat pipes underneath.

[status quo]

I don't think they are hyped up. They have a big advantage in that they don't need any moving (read noisy) parts to transport large amounts of heat from a small surface to a big surface for dissipation. Also in contrast to watercooling they are completely maintainance free.

Cheers
Srek
because the 2.5ghz are essentially the same cpu overclocked.

the need both watercooling and heatpipes.

so its not maintenance free!!!

also the printmaster said watercooling doesn't need maintenance. you have just said ^^^ it does.

you are contradicting each other.

i really think your making it up as you go along here.

[ThePrintMaster]

This is my final post on the matter because you are being a rambunctious prick.

watercooling in itself does. But does it say anywhere that the watercooling in apple's system needs maintenance? it may, but I didnt see it.

At this point you are arguing for the sake of arguing. You are using my posts and someone elses posts together for the sake of arguing. You are going back and forth grabbing information from various sources (apple watercooling vs watercooling at home) in order to keep up an argument on something.

You took sreks post saying that he dosent think that they are hyped up and argued against it on the basis that apples 2.5 is overclocked. Why overclocking a chip makes heatpipes hyped up is beyond me.

I would like it if someone closes this thread because you are being a complete dick and this discussion is going nowhere based on the fact that you are the person in which this article is mentioning.

http://www.bit-tech.net/column/11/

found in this thread

http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?t=150325

:banghead:

[status quo]

ehh?

i don't understand why you give me that link?

is that you or something?

my point.

--------

- macs are over priced.
- the current line of cinema displays with ADC connector are GOD
- i hate apples marketing.
- for the most part the mac is useless unless you like the software that runs on it such as shake.
- mac vs pc : well the pc has linux, so even if you are anti windows there is still something.
- the water cooling is the same as watercooling available in PCs.
- the heatpipes make the case heavy.
- shuttle owns your ass.
- the people who are "arguing" with me are baised against PC.
- what does and ipod and how much you hate windows have to do with it?
- 9 slow spinning case fans still make noise. 9X are more noisey more than 2X slow spinning 120mm's.
- do you really need that much cooling?
- when i paid £100 for a ti4200, the same card cost £330 in the apple store.
- your pro mac/apple case doesn't addd up you keep contradicting yourself.
- you language is appaling.
- 28% fater than xeon (incorrect), why not compare it to real processors (opteron).
- AMD 64 is better than G5.
- pentium 3, 4 (northwood), pentium M are fantastic architecture. iAMD64 is be better (not sure) :).
- NO PCI E
- the pc has vapochill.
- i use a very basic video editing app for doing some dvds. hyperthreading makes it fly alot faster.
- DB is only one way of measuing sound and not the primary for human ear.

i'll think of more.

-thanks

[shehbahn]

http://a48.g.akamai.net/7/48/51/e43abc0a106b02/www.apple.com/ca/powermac/images/designclutter06082004.jpg

i rest my case :wip:

[status quo]

thats cool.

new G5 hasn't been released right?

that image is photoshoped.

pictures off newegg of the SN41G2V2 (version 2 of SN41G2)

http://images10.newegg.com/productimage/56-101-427-01.JPG

http://images10.newegg.com/productimage/56-101-427-08.JPG


^^^ bunch of pics. mine have the coolermaster cover (5.5 inch bay), shown in a post by singularity 2006 on a desktop pc of his. much nicer.

how ever much you like the new G5 heatpipe/water cooling. you cant beat shuttle.

especially the new IWILL dual opteron box. seach the forum

EDIT: my case is endless :wip:

also in that pic if your trying to make the case look tidy. all it is is a metal plate covering the PSU, watercooling and wiring. woop-dee-dee.

[status quo]

I would like it if someone closes this thread because you are being a complete dick and this discussion is going nowhere based on the fact that you are the person in which this article is mentioning.
i think this sums you and your arguement.

i could pose the same question to you. are you the person in that article?

Why overclocking a chip makes heatpipes hyped up is beyond me no i am saying that the G5 chip looking overclocked and needing such extravagant cooling is not such a good sign.

watercooling in itself does. But does it say anywhere that the watercooling in apple's system needs maintenance? it may, but I didnt see it. you don't see alot of things. it will probably need topping up at some point.

apple watercooling vs watercooling at home you say it in such a way, as if i've stuck the garden hose in my computer and apple hasn't.

just because i have the skill to fit the appliance myself doesn't make it any less valid.

[dmeyer]

Someone please close this thread. It's cluttering up the forum with childish bickering.

Thanks

[beaker]

no i am saying that the G5 chip looking overclocked and needing such extravagant cooling is not such a good sign.Intel and AMD will need the same thing very soon. This is a chip manufacturing issue when they move to .90nm designs. IBM is just a little ahead of the curve on shipping them.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16247
http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/20040426-3697.html
http://www.eedesign.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=19201699

[status quo]

AMD hasn't released their 90nm yet. pre release says they don't have such problems as intel.

"Winchester" is out later this year.

ultimately AMD are offering more performance at lower temperatures. with no extreme cooling.

does it matter whether 90nm or not?

your links relate to problems with INTELS prescott CPU.

to comabt this intel are moving their pentium M technology to desktop.

AMD doesn't have this problem.

but who knows?

[ThePrintMaster]

definitely a fanboy:wip:

[beaker]

AMD licensed all the technologies from IBM(SOI and strained silicon) that are supposed get rid of the heat issues(which obviosly don't fully take care of the problem by the looks of the G5). I guarantee that AMD will have the same problem that IBM and Intel are having. AMD has allready delayed their 90nm chips a few times because of this:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20031215184404.html

[Srek]

I said no such thing.

Look at the quote you are copying.

Originally Posted by Drexster
as for the liquid cooling it's not the same as what modders do for liquid cooling, all it is, is a circulation system over the cpus, and it makes a huge difference in heat desipation.

The new G5 has 2 distinct cooling systems. In this quote he is specifically referring to the liquid cooling that flows over the CPU's. No mention is made of the heatpipe system, which is completely different that is used on the underside of the motherboard according to pictures of it which were on an Apple site last week.

He said liquid cooling, I said liquid cooling. That is the only portion being commented on.

Absolutely no mention was made what so ever of the heat pipes underneath.
Maybe this is simply a mixup of terms. Heatpipes are liquid cooling system, just different ones then usual watercooling. Afaik only heatpipes are used in the 2.5GHz G5. Apple marketing would make sense calling this maintainance free, since it is.
After having a look at the apple website again i'm not realy sure what they realy use. Maybe it's a system that uses the expansion of liquid to pump it through the system instead of evaporating it, but the diagrams clearly leave out any kind of pump which suggests some kind of heatpipe system.
If someone has more insight on what is used please post it, i'm curious.

Cheers
Srek

PS Not beeing a mac guy i found this thread interesting nevertheless, let's not turn this in just another boring mudfight but keep it on a usefull level.

[status quo]

:) i'd take intel over amd anyday. how can i be fan fanboy?

i think this shows how pathetic your arguement is resorting to personal insults.

and if amd hasn't released their chips how can you say they will overheat?

[MadMax]

check this picture to see what I meant.......

http://apple.weblogsinc.com/entry/2138236470391124/

You can clearly see that the setup on the underside of the board is a heatpipe as we traditionally know it, and the tubes terminate into the expected radiators.

Then look at the otther side, and you can see that what is on top of the CPU's is an altogether separate system, using completely different types of tubing, rubber hosing and clamps running into a very large radiator.

Form that picture it seems quite clear tha the G5 is using two different methods to cool their system. One a heatpipe system, the second a traditional type "water cooled" system. Regardless of what fluid is actually in the system.



Maybe this is simply a mixup of terms. Heatpipes are liquid cooling system, just different ones then usual watercooling. Afaik only heatpipes are used in the 2.5GHz G5. Apple marketing would make sense calling this maintainance free, since it is.
After having a look at the apple website again i'm not realy sure what they realy use. Maybe it's a system that uses the expansion of liquid to pump it through the system instead of evaporating it, but the diagrams clearly leave out any kind of pump which suggests some kind of heatpipe system.
If someone has more insight on what is used please post it, i'm curious.

Cheers
Srek

PS Not beeing a mac guy i found this thread interesting nevertheless, let's not turn this in just another boring mudfight but keep it on a usefull level.

[Srek]

Thanks madmax, that was just the information i was missing.
As usualy Apple marketing material was a little misleading here ;)

Cheers
Srek

[Vertizor]

Anyone remember Peltier coolers?? :D

[polywrangler]

Both IBM and Intel have hit a bottleneck in providing a 3 ghz chip due and thus Intel declared Moore's law as dead (moore's law stated that the speed of processors would double every year). Something to do with not finding a cost efficient solution to etch the micro transistors any smaller on the chips. The solution proposed by IBM has been to provide the cooling solutions it has developed for the mainframe market to the consumer market so the existing chips may be overclocked safely to provide gains in processing speed. The inability of IBM to deliver the 3ghz chip prompted some media to theorize that Macs would even switch to Intel chips! Since Intel has run into the same bottlenecks as IBM this seems unlikely. For 3d, a dual Xeon PC is still the way to go, on the other hand Apple Shake is the coolest compositing software ever.

[MadMax]

Thanks madmax, that was just the information i was missing.
As usualy Apple marketing material was a little misleading here ;)

Cheers
Srek
Not a problem. I figured we had a mis communication thing going. For some reason I thought you were a Mac guy and just had the blueprints to the machine on a wall poster already or something.

Anyway, weird design.

As to the maintenance free claim, the reality of that is very doubtful. It has tubing fitted over piping and that can never be maintenance free no matter what they claim.

[Srek]

Not a problem. I figured we had a mis communication thing going. For some reason I thought you were a Mac guy and just had the blueprints to the machine on a wall poster already or something.

Now that made me lough :)
I've been a PC service technician for about 12 years, got my first 8088 in 1984 and i have build well over 2000 PCs over the years ;)


Anyway, weird design.

As to the maintenance free claim, the reality of that is very doubtful. It has tubing fitted over piping and that can never be maintenance free no matter what they claim.
I agree. this looks like a well build watercooling system, but it comes with the same drawbacks as any other watercooling system. Let's hope they used realy good materials and plastics that can stand the heat for more then a couple of years. If this leaks the machine is garbage.

Cheers
Srek

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.