Finally: dual-core Power Macs!

Nick Hiltgen · October 20th, 2005, 11:26 AM

I just read that apple is now inside the top 5 computer makers (they were 6th before), granted it was on a fan site but if it's true that says a lot for the little ipod company that could. In addition I've read that because the information is not split up into two seperate processors just one processor using two cores the single dual core is faster then the dual single core's, but come on who's going to even wanna look at a single dual core processor anymore when they have the "quad" out. It's soooo beautiful. ::wipes drool from chin::

I'm sort of with jack on the memory issue. I think that they have to offer the memmory in pairs because that's how the destributed information works (hince hwy no single 2gb stick). However I would LOVE to have the option of just buying two 2gb sticks (ecc or not) instead of 4 1gb sticks and then upgrading whenever I got the job or money to pay for it. The intereting thing to me is that the hard drives aren't quite as big of a rip off as I thought they would be.500gb sata for $500.

October 20th, 2005, 11:47 AM

Just bought the new dual 2.7 a few months ago. Ugggg.

BUT, it's great that Apple continues on with pushing the edge even further! Plenty of items for the Christmas list this year.

Mark Sloan · October 20th, 2005, 11:53 AM

The Xeons are a joke. AMD's dual cores are waaaaay better. Apple is waiting for the next gereration of Intel chips, the Xeons were just pushed out there to prove they are in the dualcore game.

I read a performance review of the new machines, can't remember where... basically, a dualcore 2.3 beats a dual processor 2.5... but not by much. Essentially dualcore has advantages in memory sharing speeds... think of the path between processors now being shorter and a wider set of lanes. Is that worth something to you? Probably not, but the new video cards, larger memory expansion and set of PCI Express slots might make the newer, "faster" machines worthwhile.

October 20th, 2005, 11:58 AM

Mark, you do have a good point about the Intel deal. I have to admit, with knowing that's down the road, I'm likely to hesitate on getting anything new until that point (since my most recent G5 is just a couple of months old)

...But I think for anyone who was going to buy a new computer between today and the point of the Intel Apple's becoming available will be very lucky to have this G5.

As far as the AMD thing. You may be right, I don't know, as I have not done graphic or video work on a PC since 1998. For me though, it's not just the speed alone, it's the whole workflow/interface/programs that Apple provides that appeals to me.

Robert Mann Z. · October 20th, 2005, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Sloan

Is that worth something to you? .

well for us its like i said its in your need and software capabilities...

our bottle neck for us has always been the procs, especially when rendering, after effects, dv to mpg, and lightwave stuff...if i can squeeze out an extra 15 minutes out of procoder its worth it to me...

the new xeons might very well be a joke...i will wait till the ht dualcores come out before i make any judgements..

Mark Sloan · October 20th, 2005, 12:27 PM

I didn't mean to imply these aren't great machines... in fact, I think if you need something for the next 2 years, these are a great way to go... But if you JUST bought, how much improvement are these machines performance-wise? We have to wait for FCP, After Effects, etc. tests to really know. Then people can make informed decisions... but dualcore vs. dual processors, dualcore done well will win.

For those waiting for the Intel macs... do you REALLY want your biz to rely on a NEW OS on a NEW processor running NEW apps? I think most of us will wait for the second revisions and a lot of bug fixing before making the dive, performance increase or not, if you have to deal with crashes, that gain is lost. But the prospects are exciting...

October 20th, 2005, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Sloan

I didn't mean to imply these aren't great machines...

Didn't take it that way at all. It's all good. :)

Heath McKnight · October 20th, 2005, 01:02 PM

One of my friends tells me EVERY day that an AMD is faster, but I remind him, I don't like Windows and I'm a much bigger fan of Final Cut Pro. I've been using it for 6 years now.

Of course, I agree with him that had Apple gone to AMD instead of Intel, I wouldn't be buying a Quad to keep me out of Intel for an extra year or two (which translates to 4 years).

heath

October 20th, 2005, 11:26 AM	#16
Nick Hiltgen Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Atlanta GA Posts: 1,427	I just read that apple is now inside the top 5 computer makers (they were 6th before), granted it was on a fan site but if it's true that says a lot for the little ipod company that could. In addition I've read that because the information is not split up into two seperate processors just one processor using two cores the single dual core is faster then the dual single core's, but come on who's going to even wanna look at a single dual core processor anymore when they have the "quad" out. It's soooo beautiful. ::wipes drool from chin:: I'm sort of with jack on the memory issue. I think that they have to offer the memmory in pairs because that's how the destributed information works (hince hwy no single 2gb stick). However I would LOVE to have the option of just buying two 2gb sticks (ecc or not) instead of 4 1gb sticks and then upgrading whenever I got the job or money to pay for it. The intereting thing to me is that the hard drives aren't quite as big of a rip off as I thought they would be.500gb sata for $500. __________________ I have a dream that one day canon will release a 35mm ef to xl adapter and I'll have iris control and a 35mm dof of all my ef lenses, and it will be awesome...

October 20th, 2005, 01:02 PM	#23
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	One of my friends tells me EVERY day that an AMD is faster, but I remind him, I don't like Windows and I'm a much bigger fan of Final Cut Pro. I've been using it for 6 years now. Of course, I agree with him that had Apple gone to AMD instead of Intel, I wouldn't be buying a Quad to keep me out of Intel for an extra year or two (which translates to 4 years). heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

October 20th, 2005, 11:47 AM	#17
Guest Posts: n/a	Just bought the new dual 2.7 a few months ago. Ugggg. BUT, it's great that Apple continues on with pushing the edge even further! Plenty of items for the Christmas list this year.

October 20th, 2005, 11:53 AM	#18
Mark Sloan Major Player Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Venice, CA Posts: 346	The Xeons are a joke. AMD's dual cores are waaaaay better. Apple is waiting for the next gereration of Intel chips, the Xeons were just pushed out there to prove they are in the dualcore game. I read a performance review of the new machines, can't remember where... basically, a dualcore 2.3 beats a dual processor 2.5... but not by much. Essentially dualcore has advantages in memory sharing speeds... think of the path between processors now being shorter and a wider set of lanes. Is that worth something to you? Probably not, but the new video cards, larger memory expansion and set of PCI Express slots might make the newer, "faster" machines worthwhile.

October 20th, 2005, 11:58 AM	#19
Guest Posts: n/a	Mark, you do have a good point about the Intel deal. I have to admit, with knowing that's down the road, I'm likely to hesitate on getting anything new until that point (since my most recent G5 is just a couple of months old) ...But I think for anyone who was going to buy a new computer between today and the point of the Intel Apple's becoming available will be very lucky to have this G5. As far as the AMD thing. You may be right, I don't know, as I have not done graphic or video work on a PC since 1998. For me though, it's not just the speed alone, it's the whole workflow/interface/programs that Apple provides that appeals to me.

October 20th, 2005, 12:27 PM	#21
Mark Sloan Major Player Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Venice, CA Posts: 346	I didn't mean to imply these aren't great machines... in fact, I think if you need something for the next 2 years, these are a great way to go... But if you JUST bought, how much improvement are these machines performance-wise? We have to wait for FCP, After Effects, etc. tests to really know. Then people can make informed decisions... but dualcore vs. dual processors, dualcore done well will win. For those waiting for the Intel macs... do you REALLY want your biz to rely on a NEW OS on a NEW processor running NEW apps? I think most of us will wait for the second revisions and a lot of bug fixing before making the dive, performance increase or not, if you have to deal with crashes, that gain is lost. But the prospects are exciting...