kaboom[at]atari.net (Ruffin Bailey) wrote in message news:<172e9d35.0307060709.3dfb00f6[at]posting.google.com>...
> I realize there are the NASA benchmarks with one 2 GHz turned off
> (from which you could scale and get a rough idea what's going on) and
> a few 1.6/1.8 numbers at Apple, but has anyone really seen a good test
> of performance from the 1.6 & 1.8 G5 models? Even an Xbench score?
> Seems like everything from WWDC is all 2 GHz duallies.
>
> Fwiw, at least one Apple sales feller at 1-800-MY-APPLE (or whatever
> it is) has said that orders so far as "99% 2 GHz dual processor
> Powermacs". Thought that was interesting. If only $1000 extra would
> fall into my lap...

Or if somebody figures out how to upclock a single 1.8 to 2.0...

Apple's pricing makes the 1.6 not such a good value, and the dual 2.0
close enough to be worth the money, especially once resale value is
considered.

=Heywood=

In article <dd5de929.0307061402.389f845d[at]posting.google.com>,
imouttahere[at]mac.com (Heywood Mogroot) wrote:

> Or if somebody figures out how to upclock a single 1.8 to 2.0...

Wouldn't that likely cause the delicately-tuned cooling system to fail?

"Anthony D. Minkoff" <adminkoff[at]NOSPAMcox.net> wrote in message news:<adminkoff-0D6ED7.15113906072003[at]news.west.cox.net>...
> In article <dd5de929.0307061402.389f845d[at]posting.google.com>,
> imouttahere[at]mac.com (Heywood Mogroot) wrote:
>
> > Or if somebody figures out how to upclock a single 1.8 to 2.0...
>
> Wouldn't that likely cause the delicately-tuned cooling system to fail?

yeah, I'm sure Apple people hard-coded their advanced 9 fan system to
run on some RPM multiplier of the FSB setting of the machine shipped
when it left the factory. LOL.

=Heywood=

> Apple's pricing makes the 1.6 not such a good value, and the dual 2.0
> close enough to be worth the money, especially once resale value is
> considered.

The 1.6 is a bad value for a lot of reasons. If you look at some of
Apple's product matrices, they do this often. There is a tier of three
products, and the bottom is crippled.

Take the iPods. The 10 gig is not only less capacity than the 15 or 30,
it also lacks accessories. (In the previous generation, the 5 even
lacked features of the 10 and 20.)

Same now with the G5: you will note the bottom barrel 1.6 also has
slower RAM (333Mhz), less RAM capacity (4 GB), no PCI-X, aside from a
smaller HD (80 gig).

I would guess the 1.6 benches a bit worse than the 1.8. Not a hella lot,
but more than just the clockspeed diff. given the above.

On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 22:16:07 -0400, Seeker1 <seeker1[at]mac.com> wrote:

>Same now with the G5: you will note the bottom barrel 1.6 also has
>slower RAM (333Mhz),

And will a single G5 hit the RAM ceiling? Not terribly likely, don't
you think? Sure, it might be 2-3% slower, but enough to warrant a
"bad value" given the cost savings?

>less RAM capacity (4 GB),

How many people here have 2G, the limit on the older Macs? Anyone? I
have 800M, and I feel that's a lot. This doesn't impact speed.

>no PCI-X,

How many here have PCI peripherals that would stress PCI enough to
justify and merit PCI-X? Anyone? This also doesn't impact speed
unless you actually have PCI-X peripherals.

>aside from a
>smaller HD (80 gig).

HDs are cheap. Since the drives are of the same generation, it's
doubtful this would impact speed much if at all, but I'll give it to
you.

>I would guess the 1.6 benches a bit worse than the 1.8. Not a hella lot,
>but more than just the clockspeed diff. given the above.

Considering 2 of the 4 things you mentioned don't impact speed, it's
tough to get excited about the differences. It's a little jump in
performance - unless there are other differences??

In article <seeker1-50CA23.22160706072003[at]news.comcast.giganews.com>,
Seeker1 <seeker1[at]mac.com> wrote:

> > Apple's pricing makes the 1.6 not such a good value, and the dual 2.0
> > close enough to be worth the money, especially once resale value is
> > considered.
>
> The 1.6 is a bad value for a lot of reasons. If you look at some of
> Apple's product matrices, they do this often. There is a tier of three
> products, and the bottom is crippled.
>
> Take the iPods. The 10 gig is not only less capacity than the 15 or 30,
> it also lacks accessories. (In the previous generation, the 5 even
> lacked features of the 10 and 20.)
>
> Same now with the G5: you will note the bottom barrel 1.6 also has
> slower RAM (333Mhz), less RAM capacity (4 GB), no PCI-X, aside from a
> smaller HD (80 gig).
>
> I would guess the 1.6 benches a bit worse than the 1.8. Not a hella lot,
> but more than just the clockspeed diff. given the above.

There's a price to be paid for being at the bottom of the barrel. Some
people may decide that the $500 to go from 1.6 to 1.8 isn't worth it,
just as many will decide that $100 to go from 10 GB to 15 GB (even with
the accessories) isn't worth it.

In article <s9mhgvor7j4sle7h5nckqs1mo2klo4qi8t[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 22:16:07 -0400, Seeker1 <seeker1[at]mac.com> wrote:
>
> >Same now with the G5: you will note the bottom barrel 1.6 also has
> >slower RAM (333Mhz),
>
> And will a single G5 hit the RAM ceiling? Not terribly likely, don't
> you think? Sure, it might be 2-3% slower, but enough to warrant a
> "bad value" given the cost savings?
>
> >less RAM capacity (4 GB),
>
> How many people here have 2G, the limit on the older Macs? Anyone? I
> have 800M, and I feel that's a lot. This doesn't impact speed.
>
> >no PCI-X,
>
> How many here have PCI peripherals that would stress PCI enough to
> justify and merit PCI-X? Anyone? This also doesn't impact speed
> unless you actually have PCI-X peripherals.
>
> >aside from a
> >smaller HD (80 gig).
>
> HDs are cheap. Since the drives are of the same generation, it's
> doubtful this would impact speed much if at all, but I'll give it to
> you.
>
> >I would guess the 1.6 benches a bit worse than the 1.8. Not a hella lot,
> >but more than just the clockspeed diff. given the above.
>
> Considering 2 of the 4 things you mentioned don't impact speed, it's
> tough to get excited about the differences. It's a little jump in
> performance - unless there are other differences??

OK, let's get a few things straight:

1. I said the 1.6 might bench a little differently. That wasn't to
indicate that everything I mentioned would impact *performance*. I was
indicating to others that it has less RAM/HD capacity, etc.

2. I also wasn't indicating that everybody needs 8 GB RAM of DDR400 or
PCI-X; I'm merely pointing out that people might think from Jobs'
presentations that all G5's have it, when the bottom doesn't.

3. I think, given that, the bottom G5 would be a BETTER value, if it was
MORE lower priced than the 1.8.

3a. This might happen when there is a bit of tower matrix shuffling in 2
months. So, no, I am not "excited" or upset.
3b. I enjoy watching you jump to Apple's defense. Maybe I can figure out
ways to do this more often. I'll make an advocate of you yet...

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 10:49:58 -0400, Seeker1 <seeker1[at]mac.com> wrote:

>3b. I enjoy watching you jump to Apple's defense. Maybe I can figure out
>ways to do this more often. I'll make an advocate of you yet...

LOL. Hey, I bought an eMac, eh? And a GigE G4, too.