Quad G5s are quite the bargain

[(SiX)Sheixhundt]

Well,

heres the breakdown.
You tell ME what it means.
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/11/18/quadbench/index.php

To me it means apple is HEAVILY reliant on the elitist market for keeping their sales numbers up..and for the average user..performance has been maxed out, and speed increases are only cosmetic.
(ok, the 3d professionals can reap some benefits, but overall.. those are the only people who will garner any significant increases)

For instances..
Running UT2004 on a Quad, it will ONLY COST YOU $266 per extra frame over the 2.3 dual cores..which STILL means that my Dual 2.5 is still the best bargain for mac power.
So basically it cost an extra $800 for THREE extra frames, which to the average user and or gamer, unless they are rich, is absolutely NO GAIN AT ALL!

Conclusion..Apples is fucking you in the ass, if you think that these recent developments are significant, in terms of speed and performace, and that the newer machines hold ZERO..fucking ZERO advantage over machines purchased a year ago.(ok, slightly better than zero) While i always supected that this was true to a degree..i am positive now. Performance is maxed, and they are riding on HYPE. Im bettting its going to be the same story with the new macs next years. All sorts of press for a MINISCULE performance gain for he 'average" user.

I really anticipated HUGE performance gains with FOUR FUCKING processors..so..really..theres not.
These are machines for guys who get off telling their buddies, hey look..i got the hottest mac on the market...ok...tell ya what..you go ahead and ENJOY those THREE extra frames on UT (53) over the 50 that the 2.3 gets...I suspect that my 2.5 gets that 53..i really bet it does. Ill spend the $800 i saved on a new guitar, or six rounds of tequila and 47 tijuana whores.

(and yes i know its not economical to buy high end mac rigs for gaming, so dont adress me on that level) this is just the one benchmark that is relevant to the majority reading this post.

go apple.

[*DAMN Mauti]

Oh well for video editing(especially HD real time rendering) it is quite useful and further for all scientific researchers it has the extra power beside 3D rendering. Of course it's not for gaming, because almost all games today are just single threaded programms. Ryan Gordon sometimes moves the sound onto the 2nd processor but that's it, because games are nowadays programmed for just one processor you won't see any framerate plus, but this will changes with the upcoming nex gen consoles, who uses multicores.

Just take a look behind the scene before you judge Apple. The Quad was never made for extra gaming power....

[Civrock]

They're not made for gaming... all games you play don't even support two processors, not to mention four (respectively cores). So what the hell do you expect? The games at this time don't profit of more processors. One is too little because it will slow the game down if you have any other applications open, that's why dual macs are recommended. But not because the game uses it, no, only so the game doesn't get slowed down by the system in general (one processor technology).

You don't pay the price of a quad core mac for more performance in games, you pay it for MUCH more performance in apps that actually take use of it. Go check barefeats.com or the benchmarks of some pro-apps on the Apple G5 sites... and you'll see what I mean.

Let's take a dual 2.0Ghz G5 for example... it's more than good enough for the available games at the moment. The only thing which matters now is the graphics card, everything else doesn't matter for the game because they don't support it, hardware (besides graphics) is at its max. Like four cores... that's NOT meant for games. Which moron would buy a quad-core G5 only for gaming anyway?!
Your statements in case of gaming with the quad-core are ridiculous and irrelevant. Games don't profit of it, and they are not meant to, they only profit of a better graphics card (and maybe a bit more RAM of course) at this state. In everything else the quad-cores are MUCH faster than all former models or single dual-cores and are worth its price (which many benchmarks proove).

Just wait for the Unreal 3 engine, or Ageia and others. Games will use the available power soon. Apple is not to blame, they didn't develop the software. Blame the game developers etc who didn't think about dual-processor (or more) support earlier... until then you won't see a difference in games by this hardware technology.

Conclusion: Sheix, you n00b!


P.S.: They didn't even mention which graphics card was used in the quad-core G5... or the other Macs for that matter.

[(SiX)Sheixhundt]

 

Well, you both did what i was hoping no one would do..(and what i asked no one do..in my post)
I mentioned that i KNEW that it wasnt a gaming rig...nor intended as one.

And now I see Civic has also jumped in completely oblivious to my request that you not adress the post as a gaming convention. I STATED SPECIFICALLY THAT I KNEW THESE MACS ARENT MADE SPECIFICALLY FOR GAMING....good grief..no one reads anymore.

THIS PART..READ THIS PART BEFORE YOU ADDRESS ME...>>>>"(and yes i know its not economical to buy high end mac rigs for gaming, so dont adress me on that level)"

Im still standing behind my assertion that the performance increases arent relevant for 99% of mac users...for the PRICE.

I run 3d apps as a regular part of my business, and on occasion ...video, and still FOUR processors do not output the difference in performance that one would expect over last Gen Dual Towers, and that performace boost is way overhyped by apple...NOR is it worth the couple thousand in extras youd eventually put on a machine that large...

My basic point being, is that if Im being pitched the latest-greatest, in this late age of macs..
I expect a SIGNIFICANT performance increase...not 3-7%.

Conclusion: Civic, dont roll your eyes at me...you NoOb..
i SAID NOT TO ADRESS THE GAMING!!!!!!!!!!

i made a mistake of using a gaming example..well, becuase this is a gaming forum, and that i should have known that the POINT of my post was going to be ignored, becuase of the example i used.
Ive seen the benchmarks for other apps..and yes, there was some improvement..but not LATE model level percentages that one would expect from FOUR processors..or the price.

sigh. i give up. 

[BFG]

lol god i love you shiex

There are a couple of things to look at with this - some very obviouse and others people may have over looked...

straight up putting 4 processors in a mac ain't going to make things go like shit of a shovel - take imovie as the most obviouse example - 3 seconds quicker with two extra processors says welcome to the inportant factor that the software has to be built to take advantage of all these processors.

then again, i was very pleased to see the roasting of the MPG2 export .. its a nice speed but still not as much as i expected i must confess!

was gonna say somthing else, can't remember, can't be arsed

[Civrock]

The performance increases are relevant for 99% of the mac users these quad-core G5s are meant for. And since you mention 3D... the performance increase in this area, particularly Cinema 4D, is more than 100%. It's not overhyped, many benchmarks proove it (and I don't even mean the ones by Apple).

Sigh... you know why I (and Mauti) replied as I replied? Because you only took gaming examples in your post, which is the worst example you could've chosen, because it's completely irrelevant and not Apple's business or fault.

[(SiX)Sheixhundt]

I'll see your Touche`...and raise you a BAH!

Im gonna look around and see if i can scrounge a better comeback other than...
"OK SO YOU HAVE A GOOD POINT!!!"

cheers.
fukr.
 

[Brutha]

Not for gaming? what do you mean? This would be the perfect machine for BFG who just needs to render this one video befre a CB. God knows how many times he's been screaming on NF over how long that takes and how it interferes with his gametime. So...fast rendering means more gametime for BFG. 

[BTs_Mysterio]

OR the mere fact you could render with a few processors and use the rest for gaming.

[DarK.]

Not for gaming? what do you mean? This would be the perfect machine for BFG who just needs to render this one video befre a CB. God knows how many times he's been screaming on NF over how long that takes and how it interferes with his gametime. So...fast rendering means more gametime for BFG. 

omg so true[/size]

[th.Sentinel]

Dual 2.5 vs Quad 2.5

Both have 2GB RAM, both running a bluefilter on a HDV 1080i movie of 4 seconds.

http://www.macbidouille.com/news/photonews23/testquad.mov.sit

The dual needs a minute, the quad 26 seconds.

Sources: Macbidouille and Macfreak

[BFG]

hehe holy crappola that was fast

ps... hehe very true brutha, the hours and hours of extra gaming time i would have had