CGTalk - new dual core Macs!

ooo

10-19-2005, 04:35 PM

This just in, more details to follow:

The new systems feature dual-core PowerPC processors and a new system architecture that can support up to 16GB of 533MHz DDR2 RAM. They can also hold up to 1 terabyte (TB) of internal Serial ATA (SATA) storage, and are the first Power Macs to feature PCI Express (PCIe) expansion slots. DDR2 RAM and PCIe are both featured on Apple's recently refreshed iMac G5 system.

Apple has worked with graphics maker Nvidia Corp. to feature four new graphics options for the refreshed Power Mac G5 line, including the Quadro FX 4500 -- Nviidia's fastest workstation card. This fills a gap in the Power Mac line that has long been criticized by 3D graphics professionals and others who have wanted faster graphics systems than the consumer-oriented cards and chips Apple has offered in the past. The Quadro card can support dual 30-inch displays, according to Moody.

The new Power Macs G5 "Quad" system touts eight floating point units, four velocity engines, four 1MB Level 2 caches and is capable of processing 76.6 gigaflops. "There is some serious horsepower under the hood," said Moody.

The Power Mac G5 starts in a single-processor, dual-core configuration clocked at 2.0GHz for $1,999. The 2.3GHz dual-core system costs $2,499, and the "Quad" dual-processor, dual-core system starts at $3,299.

Other3DMaster

10-19-2005, 04:36 PM

oh, man, oh, man... today is the day :bounce: :bounce: :applause:

SilverCity

10-19-2005, 04:48 PM

More info can be found here:

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/10/19/liveupdate/index.php

kromekat

10-19-2005, 04:48 PM

Venkman

10-19-2005, 04:51 PM

Interesting!!

Faster 'pro' cards are great, but unless Apple have addressed the OGL situation, I don't see that this will be a great step up, given that the current 'consumer' cards run at almost half the performance speed of their identical PC counterparts!? - it's not the cards at fault here. :/

Hmm - dual dualcore!... wonder what the cinebenches will be on those babies! ;D

Yeah, an update to Open GL could help us prevous owners as well. ;-)

The dual dual core is drool worthy but my next Mac purchase will be Intel based! I also feel great about buying when I did, because I got a dual 2.3 last rev. A dual core 2.3 may be faster, but I don't think it will be a large enough difference to make me say "I should have waited!".

ooo

10-19-2005, 04:53 PM

And that new nvidea 4500 comes at a price ($1650!).
But the dual dualcore 2.5 must give a nice CB-score :)

BTW: Store is online now

odo

kromekat

10-19-2005, 05:17 PM

And that new nvidea 4500 comes at a price ($1650!).
But the dual dualcore 2.5 must give a nice CB-score :)

odo

Man - that's an expensive card!! - i'd expect no lag in my viewport with FSAA at maximum, and all the bells and whistles for that money! :eek:

I wonder whether the quad 2.5 will give a true double speed over my current dual 2.5, or only a % increase!? - either way, I don't feel the need to upgrade until those Intel machines come out, and even then I think the dual 2.5 will (hopefully) still be fast 'enough' for most of my day to day work ;)

rizon

10-19-2005, 05:26 PM

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: CB scores pleaaaase...

mikeh64

10-19-2005, 05:28 PM

ernia

10-19-2005, 05:31 PM

kromekat

10-19-2005, 05:31 PM

I just ordered my dual dualcore!

As far as waiting for Intel Macs - good idea if you have 1 to 2 years left in your current set up

Congratulations!! :thumbsup: :bounce:

Yeah - I think I can wait :cool:

Other3DMaster

10-19-2005, 05:32 PM

I just ordered my dual dualcore!

As far as waiting for Intel Macs - good idea if you have 1 to 2 years left in your current set up - Apple says Intel will show up in consumer Macs in 2006 (iMacs, Minis), and in Power Macs "later" (2007?). And since the Intel switch is a BIG change, expect delays, and expect 1st generation troubles.

I'm with you on this one... might be 2008 before I have the pro intel-based mac I want(2nd revision)... so I'm ordering the "quad" right now...

And my current dual 2.0 will be a nice "render buddy".... :D

designbytes

10-19-2005, 05:50 PM

...I was in the market for a new box (currently 2 x G4 1Ghz) and was/am eagerly awaiting this announcement.

Anyone care to speculate the cinebench score diff between the new 1 cpu dual core 2Ghz G5 and the previous 2 cpu single core 2GHz G5?

...and the new graphics card in these new machines?

Venkman

10-19-2005, 05:51 PM

What! I don't get it. Apple is going to intel next year so they start selling more dead g5s? This time next year os9 will be dead and well as the g5 chip. Hmmm, maybe they are just squeezing out of the g5s all their latest research investment. Why would someone buy a new g5 unless they badly needed the speed right now?

A single file row is forming right here. No pushing or shoving, please.

ernia

Isn't OS9 dead right now? No shipping macs can boot natively into it. Heck, my G5 doesn't even have classic installed. Good riddance I say. Mac OS 9 almos made me switch. Mac OS X saved me.

I do see why people are upgrading now. If I were in the market, I would either get the dual dual core (they should call it drool duel core, because it is so delicious), or a previous generation dual 2.7 at a discount.

The G5 will be alive and well for quite a while, along with the G4. Too many of Apple's OS X supported machines are on G4s and G5s.

Darth Mole

10-19-2005, 05:52 PM

Yeah, I'm in! My logic goes thus: my dual 2GHz is two years old; that's a good time to upgrade. I never upgrade unless I can at least double the power leap (4GHz to 10GHz looks pretty good to me). All my apps are PPC-compatible and will be for at least two years to come - and probably a long time after that: there are a lot of G4s and G5s out there.

In two year's time when I want to upgrade again, Apple should be just about on the 2nd revision of the Intel systems and all my apps should be Intel-compatible. And I really doubt I won't be able to find someone to sell the quad to. I mean, there are still people,out there making a living using OS9 machines...

And anyway, I just wanna :p

Thalaxis

10-19-2005, 05:52 PM

stew

10-19-2005, 05:58 PM

What! I don't get it. Apple is going to intel next year so they start selling more dead g5s? This time next year os9 will be dead and well as the g5 chip.
They won't be dead. What ever happens next year, C4D on your quad G4 will run as fast as it used to. I have a last year's PowerBook G4, just because there's a newer PowerBook this year doesn't mean my old one is dead.

mikeh64

10-19-2005, 05:59 PM

What! I don't get it. Apple is going to intel next year so they start selling more dead g5s? This time next year os9 will be dead and well as the g5 chip. Hmmm, maybe they are just squeezing out of the g5s all their latest research investment. Why would someone buy a new g5 unless they badly needed the speed right now?

A single file row is forming right here. No pushing or shoving, please.

ernia

You're right, by this time next year OS9 will be dead - just 4 years after it started dying (the release of OSX). It has been dying for years.

And yes, the G5 chip will be dead, but not next year as you say but in about 4 years, when everyone has a MacTel. Companies and individuals will be using G5's for years and years.

In fact, the trouble with waiting for the first MacTels is that (like the early days of OS X) there won't very much software that runs on them for a while, the first gen will have issues, and who knows when you'll really see one.

I have a 4-year old Dual G4 - so, I can't wait another minute, let alone the 2-3 years before the Intal Macs will (a) work well and (b) have all the software I need.

ernia

10-19-2005, 06:00 PM

It's to keep some sales of powermacs going until they're ready for the transition. Without this refresh, the powermac would be a VERY hard sell when it's at 1/2 the performance of x86. This will put it back in the ballpark.

Ok. Makes sense. Will the g4s and g5s be able to run the new os that will run on the itels too?

Venkman:Isn't OS9 dead right now?

Well, yes it is. But going intel will be the last nail in the coffin of os9.

ernia

zoetropeuk

10-19-2005, 06:53 PM

Venkman

10-19-2005, 06:55 PM

... going intel will be the last nail in the coffin of os9.

ernia

I will gladly use a new dual dual core mactel to personally hammer the last nail into that coffin.

:thumbsup:

Thalaxis

10-19-2005, 07:09 PM

Ok. Makes sense. Will the g4s and g5s be able to run the new os that will run on the itels too?

Probably not, because they're not binary compatible with x86. There will most likely be at least one version of overlap where the same OS version is available for both platforms to facilitate the transition.

Thalaxis

10-19-2005, 07:11 PM

How will the G5 be dead ? It will be 2-3 Intel iterations before they outpace the Quad G5s in certain scientific and imaging applications. So for now, the quad G5s will be perfectly usable machines for at least 2-3 years.

More like 8-10 months. There's nothing like a little competition to push up the pace.

edit -- clarification: that's for the G5 to be surpassed, that is.

2a03

10-19-2005, 07:24 PM

I sure hoped they solved the G5's OpenGL issues with this revision because the dual 2.7's only scored around 1600 in Cinebench and that was with a 6800 or 850... And now their selling a "pro" gfx card for $1650 with this new one and as far as I know it hasn't been the cards that have been holding back the OGL performace all this time... Guess we'll have to wait for the Cinebench scores to find out...

dawsonbob

10-19-2005, 08:07 PM

jackb602

10-19-2005, 08:52 PM

My question at the moment is about the Dual core 2.3 Gig machines at $2,499. How will they stack up speed wise to the previous generation 2.7 Duals? I've been limping along on an old B&W G3 waiting for this update, but the price of the new Quad machine may be a little beyond my capabilities at the moment. I have a large job (a book) coming up that will certainly provide enough for the Dual core 2.3 Gig.

Thanks,

Bob Dawson

You can still order the dual processor (single core) 2.7 GHz G5 here (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/71408/wo/cB6qA77JKb2d3du6YmMB4EJskeO/0.0.15.1.0.8.5.0.0.0.0.0.0.3.1.1.0?32,79) for $2800. If your work involves alot of rendering, and you can somehow swing the price for the quad Power Mac, you'll get the most processing power for your buck. I'm saving up for one myself.

Jack

dawsonbob

10-19-2005, 09:01 PM

You can still order the dual processor (single core) 2.7 GHz G5 here (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/71408/wo/cB6qA77JKb2d3du6YmMB4EJskeO/0.0.15.1.0.8.5.0.0.0.0.0.0.3.1.1.0?32,79) for $2800. If your work involves alot of rendering, and you can somehow swing the price for the quad Power Mac, you'll get the most processing power for your buck. I'm saving up for one myself.

Jack

Hi, Jack.

That is precisely my question: which is faster, and hence the better value: the 2.3 or the 2.7. I probably won't be able to swing the cost of a Quad and a Ram update at the same time.

Thanks,

Bob Dawson

Venkman

10-19-2005, 09:14 PM

My question at the moment is about the Dual core 2.3 Gig machines at $2,499. How will they stack up speed wise to the previous generation 2.7 Duals? I've been limping along on an old B&W G3 waiting for this update, but the price of the new Quad machine may be a little beyond my capabilities at the moment. I have a large job (a book) coming up that will certainly provide enough for the Dual core 2.3 Gig.

Thanks,

Bob Dawson

Get this and a ram update. Join me in the 2.3 army.

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/71408/wo/cB6qA77JKb2d3du6YmMB4EJskeO/6.0.0.15.1.0.8.7.3.5.1.1.5.1.5.1.2.5.0

dawsonbob

10-19-2005, 09:21 PM

Get this and a ram update. Join me in the 2.3 army.

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/71408/wo/cB6qA77JKb2d3du6YmMB4EJskeO/6.0.0.15.1.0.8.7.3.5.1.1.5.1.5.1.2.5.0

Hi, Venkman.

While that looks pretty good, I won't have the money for anything until this project is finished next month. In the meantime, all I can do is learn about the differences in the machines and fantasize.

Thanks,

Bob Dawson

Rantin Al

10-19-2005, 10:16 PM

Cinebench MP rendering figures comparing Quad 2.5 against Dual 2.7 gives 55% faster.

Info from the Technical Overview pdf.

jackb602

10-19-2005, 10:28 PM

Cinebench MP rendering figures comparing Quad 2.5 against Dual 2.7 gives 55% faster.

Info from the Technical Overview pdf.

Wow, that will put the new G5 very close to the top of Mash's database! Do you have a link to the Technical Overview?

Thanks,
Jack

EDIT: never mind, found it here. (http://images.apple.com/powermac/pdf/20051018_PowerMacG5_TO.pdf)

Rantin Al

10-19-2005, 11:01 PM

Just beat me to it. :thumbsup:

kromekat

10-19-2005, 11:08 PM

I don't see the CB figures!?

jackb602

10-19-2005, 11:16 PM

I don't see the CB figures!?

They're on page 23. This part is interesting

The Power Mac G5 Quad performed the Cinebench rendering test 55 percent faster than the dual 2.7GHz Power Mac G5.

Does that mean they just measured the time for the test, or are they actually comparing the Cinebench score? It's my understanding that the score itself is a more accurate measure of performance than the test time. Is that right? Either way, I need to get my hands on one of these.

Jack

kromekat

10-19-2005, 11:40 PM

They're on page 23.

Doh! - didnt see there were more than a dozen pages when the pdf opened in Preview!
:banghead: ...need to get some sleep! ;)

Chrissyboy

10-19-2005, 11:56 PM

Does that mean they just measured the time for the test, or are they actually comparing the Cinebench score? It's my understanding that the score itself is a more accurate measure of performance than the test time.

I think the CB scales linearly with time, ie if a system take half as long to render something, it will have twice the Cinebench score.

The CB for my dual 2.7 is 700, I think this means that the new machine will have a CB of 155/100 * 700 = 1085 (ish).

Foxy.

kromekat

10-19-2005, 11:59 PM

I think the CB scales linearly with time, ie if a system take half as long to render something, it will have twice the Cinebench score.

The CB for my dual 2.7 is 730, I think this means that the new machine will have a CB of 155/100 * 730 = 1132 (ish).

Foxy.

Well if that is the case... nice!
:applause:

Chrissyboy

10-20-2005, 12:01 AM

Well if that is the case... nice!
:applause:

Lol - got my initial score wrong (700 not 730), I've edited the original post so now the result should be 1085 for the new Mac.

Not so shabby.

jackb602

10-20-2005, 02:15 AM

Lol - got my initial score wrong (700 not 730), I've edited the original post so now the result should be 1085 for the new Mac.

Not so shabby.

Considering my current machine (Dual 1 GHZ G4) gets a an earth shattering Cinebench of 175, I think I will be pretty damn excited to start working with a Quad :applause:

Jack

MJV

10-20-2005, 05:50 AM

These machines sound pretty sweet. I hope Apple will start to rethink their OS some now, as to me it's a Macs weakest aspect.

rsquires

10-20-2005, 07:19 AM

These machines sound pretty sweet. I hope Apple will start to rethink their OS some now, as to me it's a Macs weakest aspect.

If that ain't the start of a flame war I don't know what is.

But I will bite my tongue. :bounce:

Unfortunately I have a dual 2 ghz and upgrading is not in the wifes plan, at least not before she gets her new kitchen. I guess I will have to wait till the intels arrive, and who knows what we'll be seeing performance wise then.

rich

(using Mac OS 10.3.9 and occasionally OS 10.4.2 and enjoying every minute of using this elegant operating system)

lllab

10-20-2005, 08:02 AM

hey come down. i am a Pc user, but if something is really better @"apple things" it is their OS.

please no flames here,....
stefan

anobrin

10-20-2005, 08:59 AM

These machines sound pretty sweet. I hope Apple will start to rethink their OS some now, as to me it's a Macs weakest aspect.

yeah!! I hate alway having to update my virus definit............
Oh wait!!!/... thats windows :rolleyes:

Augustronïc™

10-20-2005, 09:24 AM

I want to know if there's any benefit for the C4D user working with the Nvidia Quadro FX 4500 graphics card.
1660 € plus is a lot of money but I don't expect an OGL boost.

Have a nice day!
Aloha Achim

kiwi

10-20-2005, 09:41 AM

I hope some of the other Quadro cards make it into the list sometime as well.Just adding the 4500 makes me wonder how many they will sell,and if they dont sell many whether Nvidia is going to back off Mac workstation cards altogether.

I would buy a quad if I knew that support for the G5 wouldnt just dissapear after a few years,or when the Intels land.I just dont see Apple making many dual copies {one for the G5 and Intel machines} of the new OS for long is all.

The price of ddr2 for loading up a machne kinda puts me off also. {4g in my G5

If it can keep up with the AMD dual cores then I might just change my mind.

kromekat

10-20-2005, 10:52 AM

These machines sound pretty sweet. I hope Apple will start to rethink their OS some now, as to me it's a Macs weakest aspect.

Flame bait I take it!? - especially since the quality/reliability and elegance of the Mac OS is what really sets the Mac apart from Windows.
:rolleyes:

...anyway...

Yeah, a CB on the cards would be interesting to see! - curious why there are no ATI cards in the options any more!?

Chrissyboy

10-20-2005, 11:11 AM

Here's an interesting link:

http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=3717

The Modo guys tested a Quad G5 against a dual 2.5, and a dual 2.8 Xeon, using a GI scene, the Quad obviously beat them all but the difference is quite impressive ;-)

dual 2.8 Xeon: 49 seconds
dual 2.5 G5: 38 seconds
quad 2.5 G5: 17 seconds

Cheers - Chris

Considering my current machine (Dual 1 GHZ G4) gets a an earth shattering Cinebench of 175, I think I will be pretty damn excited to start working with a Quad :applause:

Jack

kromekat

10-20-2005, 11:13 AM

Here's an interesting link:

http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=3717

The Modo guys tested a Quad G5 against a dual 2.5, and a dual 2.8 Xeon, using a GI scene, the Quad obviously beat them all but the difference is quite impressive ;-)

dual 2.8 Xeon: 49 seconds
dual 2.5 G5: 38 seconds
quad 2.5 G5: 17 seconds

Cheers - Chris

Stop it! - I am starting to feel 'Quad Envy'' :hmm:

Essania

10-20-2005, 12:13 PM

but unless Apple have addressed the OGL situation

You certainly meant "unless Maxon addressed the OGL situation" right?

kromekat

10-20-2005, 12:48 PM

You certainly meant "unless Maxon addressed the OGL situation" right?

Do Lightwave and Maya etc get comparable OGL performance between the same cards on the Mac and PC then ?

Since Apple were recently recruiting OGL programmers, and have long been blamed for the lack of better OGL code in the OS, I always figured it WAS purely an Apple issue, and not Maxon. !?

Adam

Essania

10-20-2005, 01:04 PM

mecha

10-20-2005, 01:25 PM

dual 2.8 Xeon: 49 seconds
dual 2.5 G5: 38 seconds
quad 2.5 G5: 17 seconds

Godamnit! I really didnt need to see these kind of stats, I really want to wait for the MacIntels. My Dual 2.5 is too young to die!

:cry:

Venkman

10-20-2005, 01:25 PM

kromekat

10-20-2005, 01:33 PM

You know what?
All companies hire peoples to work at certain technology.

Now, use any other 3D apps and you'll see. You will not "figure" but see the reality.
You can download a full version of modo on their web site, working for 30 days.

"People are stupid, but it's God's fault"

I am not sure whether you are trying to be helpful, or just plain old insulting in some way!?
:rolleyes:

Either way - thanks for your input.

Trig Fuller

10-20-2005, 01:44 PM

Thalaxis

10-20-2005, 02:36 PM

Do Lightwave and Maya etc get comparable OGL performance between the same cards on the Mac and PC then ?

Since Apple were recently recruiting OGL programmers, and have long been blamed for the lack of better OGL code in the OS, I always figured it WAS purely an Apple issue, and not Maxon. !?

If you go back and look at how many years MS, nVidia, ATI, et al spent getting 3D performance in Windows to the level it's at now, and compare that to how recently Apple started using OpenGL, and combine that with the fact that Quartz is a new GUI platform, it makes a lot of sense that OpenGL will be slower on OSX than on Windows.

Even Maxon took a couple of iterations to get their OpenGL implementation up to snuff, and Maxon doesn't have 800 other features (or bundled applications if you prefer) to support.

So in comparison, 3D in Windows had close to a 10-year head start over 3D in OSX. If this was an easy task, MS would never have been able to pull off their RenderMorphics stunt, and John Carmack wouldn't have ripped them a new one over Direct3D v3 back in '94 or thereabouts.

CiaránMurphy

10-20-2005, 02:52 PM

I'd advise against getting a Quadro FX. Cinema 4D uses Open GL or Software viewport rendering. The Quadro FX only gives about a 5-10% increase in OpenGL speed over the GF 7800GTX on which its based... so why pay all that money for a small increase? If you are using any other apps that have a custom driver for the Quadro then by all means get one as it will natively accelerate the apps display way faster than a GF7800. But I doubt such drivers are available yet are there are very few even on the PC.

ronhondo

10-20-2005, 03:50 PM

Being an old "Mac-head", when I read the CB of (estimated) 1085 compared with Mash's CB of 524 for my Dual 2.0 ghz G5, I just jumped up and down and then over to the Apple store and put in my order for the Quad 2.5 and a 30" display. (I had a VISA that needed a hole burnt in in it. - i.e.: it was saying SPEND ME!)

Any advice on overall config while I can still change it? I am cloudy on the two RAM types (error vs. non-error) and what effect for C4D. Need to check it out before checking with third party vendors? Can they be mixed?

While I was on the apple site I became intrigued with their new pro photo app "Aperture". Given that my work flow solutions are sub-null (esp. post) I wonder if I could config my C4D output as 32-bit "RAW" -- OpenEXR or HDR to my advantage??? Adobe briges seems problamatic on current G5, and the C4D Content Browser doesn't seem up to speed yet with its search and crash function.

http://www.apple.com/aperture/quicktours/

thanks,

ronhondo :wip: :wip: :wip:

Venkman

10-20-2005, 04:04 PM

Best bet- bring some photos with you to the Apple store and try out Aperture with your work.

Congrats on the quintuplets, by the way. :scream:

Srek

10-20-2005, 04:19 PM

Any advice on overall config while I can still change it? I am cloudy on the two RAM types (error vs. non-error) and what effect for C4D. Need to check it out before checking with third party vendors? Can they be mixed?
They should not be mixed and they make mostly sense for high availability systems like mail or webservers. CINEMA will take no notice either way, they are there to prevent the machine from crashing if a hardware error in the RAM occurs.

Cheers
Björn

ooo

10-20-2005, 04:55 PM

Hi

I realise this may be a little early to ask, but has anyone seen any results comparing comparable dual core g5s against the dual processor version.(e.g dual core 2ghz v dual processor 2ghz), the only comparisons I've seen have been between the quad 2.5 and the dual 2.7.

In a game of cinebench 'top trumps'(if you are over 30 and British you will know what this means) I can beat your cinebench of 175 with my G4 sawtooth upgraded to 800mhz, an earth shattering 73.

Thanks

Trig

First test just in: http://media.99mac.se/g5_dualcore/

This is their Conclusion
The Power Macintosh G5 is better than ever and this is likely the last major update that we will see before the transition to Intel- processors. Apple has polished the details and the new processors gives some extra power. Because the exterior is largely exchanged this feels more like a "speedbump" even if the processor-switch is more significant than that.

Performance-wise, one Dual Core processor doesn't make for a large difference compared to two old G5 processors. We predict that the new Quad 2.5GHz Powermac will make for a performance increase of 70% or more.

Cheers, odo

Thalaxis

10-20-2005, 05:19 PM

Any advice on overall config while I can still change it? I am cloudy on the two RAM types (error vs. non-error) and what effect for C4D. Need to check it out before checking with third party vendors? Can they be mixed?

Mixing them would probably make the system unreliable. The specs really aren't made for that, and the timings for ECC and non-ECC aren't the same; ECC adds a cycle of latency over non-ECC, which makes it slightly slower. It's also usually more expensive than non-ECC. Unless you have no alternative for the memory configuration you're looking for, it's probably not worth the money even in a workstation, because you'll end up rebooting the machine because of power outages, installing new drivers, and moving the box around (or accidentally stepping on your power strip ;)) than you will because of crashes from memory errors.

ECC doesn't actually do much of anything useful unless you have a few hundred DIMMs involved. :)

Rabbitroo

10-20-2005, 05:28 PM

Godamnit! I really didnt need to see these kind of stats, I really want to wait for the MacIntels. My Dual 2.5 is too young to die!

:cry:

I with you. I want to get through the transition without buying a new machine. ;)

-K

ronhondo

10-20-2005, 05:30 PM

Thanks for the timely info on the ECC RAM, it saved me some bucks...and other trouble.
I am just so excited.
Have just changed my Apple store order.

BTW: The nearest Apple Store is a 5 hr. drive for me, not an option give the price of gas.
I was Thinking that the file handling/stacks/books etc. of "Apperture.app" might be used with my renders, instead of photos.

/ronhondo

Accipiter

10-27-2005, 01:08 AM

Just a heads up that Apple has now added the GeForce 7800GT to the list of available cards in the store (for $420Cdn/about $350US). Only shipping in 6 - 8 weeks though.... ouch! Also, Macworld has posted new benchmarks for the new 2 & 2.3 machines (slightly faster than the old ones for C4D) but none for the quad.

The G5 quad and Quadro card is out of the question for me but I'm wondering if 7800 might be worth it over the stock 6600? I know in the past the card didn't make a big difference for C4D - does PCI Express change this at all? Anyone have any new info?

cheers,

Marc Oliver

Vozzz

10-27-2005, 03:21 AM

Hm... probably the first time mac specs that seem impressive. But 64bit pcs can support a terrabyte of ram or more. And since macs now use intel, kinda, well.... you know. Anyway the quadro 4500 seems really nice. But i bet the price tag on that thing will be the same a mid range car.

Thalaxis

10-27-2005, 03:26 AM

Hm... probably the first time mac specs that seem impressive. But 64bit pcs can support a terrabyte of ram or more.

There isn't a PC on the market that's physically large enough for that much memory.

thorn3d

10-27-2005, 04:00 AM

Not to mention the fact that few people on this forum could AFFORD a terabyte. ;)

thorn

ooo

11-11-2005, 03:04 PM

First cinebench score of the Quad (link posted by Pixelbot @PF): http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=1900003&postcount=80

CB 1016 is not bad :cool:

Now if only those OGL scores could rise a bit :sad:

odo

moka.studio

11-11-2005, 03:13 PM

2.83 Speedup for 4 Cpus seems pretty bad actually,
since dual Core Athlons get 1.85 speedup. -

lllab

11-11-2005, 03:18 PM

a quad opteron 275 is about 1300 i read, the 280 more even,
so still the pc side is faster.

when the macs will have intel-inside i guess i will buy one quad mac too, but not now with those g5s inside.

i heard apple registered a patent where you can run windows and linux as "secondary OS" while running osx.(only on intelmacs though)

this sounds cool and would definitly make me switch back to apple again. this would be a very powerfull machine running simultanisly osx, winxp and linux apps:-)

apple hopefully also will update their hardware more often, as users have direct comparison to pc hardware.

i hope this will be true

cheers
stefan

moka.studio

11-11-2005, 03:24 PM

just had a look over at imashination, the 2 quad opterons they have posted there have speedups of ca. 3.2.

ooo

11-11-2005, 03:30 PM

At barefeats is also a quad CB test wich comes to an even better 1100 (no more details unfortunatly). I bought my G5 about a year ago, so i don't think I will upgrade now although it's very tempting...

odo

Thalaxis

11-11-2005, 03:33 PM

2.83 Speedup for 4 Cpus seems pretty bad actually,
since dual Core Athlons get 1.85 speedup. -

You have to keep in mind that the 1.85 factor applies when going from 2 to 4 as well as from 1 to 2. When you account for that, I think you'll find that Cinema gets about the same improvement with doubling the processor count on pretty much every platform it runs on.

i heard apple registered a patent where you can run windows and linux as "secondary OS" while running osx.(only on intelmacs though)

That's one of the benefits of Vanderpool, Intel's version of virtualization. It allows an OS that supports it to act as if it "owns" the machine, even though it's running through an a hardware-support abstraction layer, so it can share the machine with another OS without tripping it up.

There are some papers out on IBM's website describing HyperVisor in case you're curious about how this stuff works.

shoqman

11-11-2005, 03:54 PM

a quad opteron 275 is about 1300 i read, the 280 more even,
so still the pc side is faster.

Also keep in mind that two dual core opterons cost $2600. That's VS $3300 for an entire machine that is barely slower.

Don't get me wrong, I have one of said dual dual opterons at work and I love it, but it was almost $7,000 and now that it's time to get a machine for home I sure as heck know which way I'm going.

-shoqman

CGTalk Moderation

11-11-2005, 03:54 PM

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.