intel = pwned


Recommended Posts

Leif

for the price of a new 15inch, i could buy the new single g5. i don't really need a mobile solution, though in about a year i'll be moving. anyone want to give me some advice?

Link to post
Share on other sites
RogueJawa
PC users - did you happen to notice that this thread is in the Mac section!!! This was not placed in the windows section so that you could say how much you hate Macs or why the benchmarks aren't true or whatever else you want to waste your time posting. No one in this section cares about your computer, period. Give it up. If you are coming in here to try to convert us to PC users, it's not going to happen.

Computers are computers. They have a use and every person likes something differet. If we were all stuck with the same thing, what a sad world it would be. If you like PC's then get one, if you like Mac's then get one. If you are interested in facts of the differences, then read about it, but why the hell do you feel like you have to come into the Mac section preaching about your PC. Give it up...

just as many people are trying to convert people to macs or saying how much better macs are

Link to post
Share on other sites
John

i just read this whole thread and i found it quite an interesting read. i'm glad there wasn't much flaming, because now i can type my response :D

most of you in this forum probably don't know me very well... i've used PCs for my whole life. i've used macs before, but never really liked them too much. I had some experience with OS7 or OS8, not totally sure which it was... OS9 was better, and OSX now is very good for the mac platform IMO.

i have to give it to apple this time, they got my respect from these benchmarks. i've been somewhat disappointed with intel's improvements over the past few years, and i was absolutely delighted when i heard about this small company who outclocked intel (AMD). i don't hate intel like some of you, and i don't hate IBM/apple like most of you. but i think the competition is good for the market. as long as it continues, we'll all just keep getting faster processors. BUT... i kinda hope intel wins this battle, because i like my PCs :blush: i'm also somewhat disappointed that the opterons weren't included in the tests, because i'd like to see how they fared.

btw, shouldn't this be in the hardware forum? :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites
kairon
And when Macs were (obviously) slower they were touting that "Mhz don't matter" and now that they are inching ahead (relatively speaking) they are all going crazy about how they'll reach 3 Ghz in such a short period of time.? Double standard or what?

(Y))

The Mhz myth has nothing to do with getting to a certain speed at a certain time, like you insinuate. It is merely saying that a higher megahertz processor doesn't necessarily perform better than a lower megahertz processor. And in this case, that hasn't changed. It's fairly obvious that Intel will be well above 3gigahertz next year when the 3gig G5 comes out. And guess what. The G5 will STILL be faster. The mhz myth continues. So no, there is obviously no double standard.

Well I just find the marketing strategy a little funny.

Megahertz do not matter as much with the "G" processors. That's true. But then after a while Intel and everyone else pushed ahead when Motorola was taking there good old time making new processors.

Now IBM is in and Motorola is out so hopefully that situation won't happen again.

I think thats the point were trying to get across.:))

Link to post
Share on other sites
Miran
sigh ignorant pc users make me laugh sometimes, I just got a G5, and I paid for it with my own money which I've been working hard to get, Macs are a little on the pricey side but the performance you get is worth it, and macs are upgradable, look at the G4's, there are tons of cpu upgrades for them, and now since IBM is making the G5 Apple will have faster cpu's coming out sooner than before, and if you want to argue about games, almost every game that is popular is out for mac, q1-3, doom 3 will come to mac, and even HL 2 will come to mac. So please don't flame when you don't even know about macs and what they can do.

-ps I've been a pc user for around 7-8 years and now I'm experiencing the mac world

Didn't you start another thread where you are trying to sell your G5 to buy a better G5? Can't be too upgradeable can they?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Miran
Firstly, a heat dissipation of 97 watts is paltry compared to the 100+ watts a Prescott is going to consume, which I *think* is 110 watts or so. And thats not bad considering the G5 is a lot faster then the P4 and still keep a nice heat dissipation compared to the P4's successor.

Also,who said G5 is going to have Hyperthreading?It may have something similiar, but certainly not HT. HT is an Intel branded feature.

I wouldn't say 97 watts is paltry compared to 100+ watts. Also, for the dual G5's does this mean they are dissipating almost 200 watts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
the evn show

Dual G5 puts out a total of 97w (IIRC it's 46.7 each under full load - it's much less if you let them scale). Why so many fans in a G5 then? To keep it quiet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
frod
Didn't you start another thread where you are trying to sell your G5 to buy a better G5? Can't be too upgradeable can they?

the difference between the 1.6 and the rest of the g5 line is a bit much. upgrading it would require the purchase of a new motherboard and a new processor etc.. etc..

why do all that when he can just sell it and buy another better one? it's cheaper this way as well. a 1.6 g5 cannot be put into any other computer but the 1.6 g5 or up so what kind of fool would he have to be to try and sell the processor or whatever by itself.

you should think a little before you make irrelevant posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
djsaad1
the difference between the 1.6 and the rest of the g5 line is a bit much. upgrading it would require the purchase of a new motherboard and a new processor etc.. etc..

why do all that when he can just sell it and buy another better one? it's cheaper this way as well. a 1.6 g5 cannot be put into any other computer but the 1.6 g5 or up so what kind of fool would he have to be to try and sell the processor or whatever by itself.

you should think a little before you make irrelevant posts.

I dont see why the post was irrelevant. He was talking about how macs are so upgradable, well obviously the 1.6 g5 isnt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
uniacid
the difference between the 1.6 and the rest of the g5 line is a bit much. upgrading it would require the purchase of a new motherboard and a new processor etc.. etc..

why do all that when he can just sell it and buy another better one? it's cheaper this way as well. a 1.6 g5 cannot be put into any other computer but the 1.6 g5 or up so what kind of fool would he have to be to try and sell the processor or whatever by itself.

you should think a little before you make irrelevant posts.

I dont see why the post was irrelevant. He was talking about how macs are so upgradable, well obviously the 1.6 g5 isnt.

because the 1.6 and 1.8 models have different motherboards, so you won't be able to put a 1.8 in a 1.6 since it runs at a different fsb speed and the 1.8+ have pci-x while the 1.6 doesn't, so it would be easier to buy a faster one, the 1.6 you can upgrade video card, hard drive's, ram, sound card, add in cards, so how is it not upgradable?

Link to post
Share on other sites
eth3l

so it takes 2 mac processors to beat 1 PC Processor.

hmm'

good job apple.

Link to post
Share on other sites
macster
so it takes 2 mac processors to beat 1 PC Processor.

hmm'

good job apple.

I really think you should look closer at the benchmarks

esp the Dual Xeons ones

Link to post
Share on other sites
xxdesmus
awesome. mac users get their day in the sun. (Y) sooner or later they'll be surpassed though and the scene will be like all mac's prior to the G5.. beaten down dinosaurs

so true...;) they will be back in their place soon enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
disgaean

:no:

It's truly disheartening to me how many people in this thread apparently have zero understanding of benchmarking and its significance.

The normalized PS7Bench results do not tell us that the G5s are faster overall than Intel's offerings... they simply tell us that the 3K$+ dual 2.0GHz scores better than Intel's current chips at the normalized results for a specific benchmark, run under a single application (and that application is one that PPC/Altivec platforms traditionally do really well at). If you look at the total time to complete the benchmark instead of the normalized score the Xeons actually finish faster. I personally feel the normalized results are more meaningful though and based on other PS7 benchmark results, I feel comfortable saying that Apple has, on the highest end, the current fastest Photoshop machine.

So if you're willing to buy a 3K$+ workstation for running Photoshop, the Dual G5 2.0GHz looks good. If your price range is below there however, the single processor G5 models score worse than cheaper single processor P4-based systems (at PS7Bench Advanced).

Here's the complete normalized PS7Bench results list for anyone who's interested (compiled over the last couple of years):

2x 2000 G5 OSX 10.2.7             555 (energy settings highest perf)
2x 2000 G5 OSX 10.2.7             497 (energy settings auto bus slewing)
2x 3060 Xeon (no L3) HT enabled   490
2x 3060 Xeon (OC'd 2400)          488
2x 2930 Xeon (OC'd 2400)          471
   3200 P4 (800MHz)               427
   3000 P4 (800MHz)               405
   3495 P4 (OC'd 3.06)            386
   3060 P4 XP Pro (533 FSB)       358 HT
2x 2200 Xeon PC 800 RDRAM CPQ Evo 357 HT
2x 3000+Athlon (2166)             355 (provisional Utwig)
2x 1500 G4 (OC'd 1420)            348
2x 1333 G4 DDR OS9.2 (oc'd 1.25)  346
   1800 G5 OSX 10.2.7w/G5plugin   344 (energy settings highest perf)
2x 1420 G4 OSX 10.2.4             338
2x 2400+Athlon MP                 338
2x 1250 G4 OS 9.2.2j              337
   3200+Athlon XP                 332
   1800 Opteron(dual-chnlDDR 333) 332
2x 1333 G4 DDR OSX10.2.2(oc 1.25) 326
   1800 OPteron(singl-chnlDDR333) 320
   3000+Athlon XP                 318
2x 1250 G4 OSX 10.2.5             318
2x 1250 G4 DDR OSX 10.2.1         316
2x 1800 Athlon MP                 312
   2800+Athlon XP Barton          298
2x 2000 P4 Xeon                   286
2x 1200 G4Powerlogix(867MHzG4/QS) 285 upgraded
2x 1533 Athlon MP                 285
2x 1533 Athlon MP                 283
   2530 P4 mobile (OC'd 1400)     282
   2700 P4B (OC 2400, 600 MHz FSB)280 
2x 1466 Athlon XP                 279
   1600 G5 OSX 10.2.7w/G5 Plugin  276 *MacNNscores (energy settings on auto)
   2666 P4 (DDR 333)              269
2x 1000 G4 DDR 10.2               267
   2400+Athlon XP                 262
2x 1000 G4 OS9                    260
2x 1000 G4 OSX 10.1.5             254
   2400+Athlon                    252
   2400 P4B (800MHz)              251
   2400b (sis 648 DDR400)         251
   1600 Centrino IBM T40          250
   2400 P4 (533MHz bus)           249
   2400 P4 B                      241
   2340 P4 (overclock)            239
   1600 Centrino Dell D800        236 
   2400 P4                        234
   1800+Athlon XP (1533 MHz)      226
   1577 oc'd Athlon XP (Lestat)   221
2x 1000 G4 OSX 10.2.2 (upgraded)  218 ?!(dual 533 logic board)
   1548 Athlon XP                 214
   1670 Athlon XP (2000+)         213 
   1667 Athlon XP                 211
   1400 Athlon XP 1600+ xp pro    200 
1x 1533 Athlon MP                 197
   1300 Centrino Sony VAIO Z1A    196
   1000 G4 17" Powrbk OSX 10.2.6  196 
   2000 P4 Xeon                   194 
   1400 Athlon XP 1600+'98SE      191
   1000 G4 OSX TiPbk 10.2.2       185
2x  533 G4 OSX 10.1.5             175
2x  533 G4 OS 9.2.2               174
   1800 P4                        173
   1200 AthlonMP                  168
   1508 Celeron (overclock)       167
   1400 PIII Tualatin             160 **?
2x  550 G4 OSX 10.2.3 (OC Cube)   160 **?
2x  500 G4 OSX                    152 
2x  450 G4 OS9                    151 
   1333 Athlon TBird              147 
2x  450 G4 OSX 10.1.5             143 
    800 G4 Pbook OSX  1MB L3      135 
    733 G4 (miro7)                134 
    667 G4 PBk OS9 noL3           127
    667 G4 PBk OSX 10.2.3 no L3   125
    466 G4 OS9                    123 
    667 G4 OSX TiPBk 10.1.5 noL3  121
    866 PIII                      114 
    466 G4 OSX 133 MHz bus        112
    550 G4 Powrbk OS9*            104 
    500 G4 Pbook (OC'd 400)       103
1x  450 G4 OSX 100 MHz bus        101
   1000 Athlon TBird (PS6.01)     100
    550 G4 Powrbk OSX*             95
    933 Transmeta Crusoe Sony      78 
    700 G3 iBook                   74
    600 G3 iBook OS 9.2.2j         70
    233 PII                        30

Now, to get an idea of overall performance let's compare some more benchmark results between the platforms.

First let's start with the benchmarks C't magazine ran in their latest issue (if I remember correctly all the systems are using a radeon 9600). They used the G5 optimized version of Cinebench which isn?t publicly available yet.:

Cinebench 2003 Rendering (more = better)
2x 2 GHz G5: 504
1x 1 GHz G4: 92
2x Xeon 3.06 GHz: 655
1x Athlon 64FX 2.2 GHz: 310
1x P4 3.2 GHz: 380

Photoshop 7 (less = faster)
2x 2 GHz G5: 278 s
1x 1 GHz G4: 796 s
2x Xeon 3.06 GHz: 287 s
1x Athlon 64FX 2.2 GHz: 337 s
1x P4 3.2 GHz: 362 s

Mathematica 5 (less = faster)
2x 2 GHz G5: 1021 s
1x 1 GHz G4: 2023 s
2x Xeon 3.06 GHz: 725 s
1x Athlon 64FX 2.2 GHz: 553 s
1x P4 3.2 GHz: 678 s

FileMaker 5.5 (less = faster)
2x 2 GHz G5: 82 s
1x 1 GHz G4: 147 s
2x Xeon 3.06 GHz: 70 s
1x Athlon 64FX 2.2 GHz: 46 s
1x P4 3.2 GHz: 62 s

MP3 encoding (less = faster)
2x 2 GHz G5: 98 s
1x 1 GHz G4: 284 s
2x Xeon 3.06 GHz: 68 s
1x Athlon 64FX 2.2 GHz: 89 s
1x P4 3.2 GHz: 91 s

MPEG-4 transcoding (less = faster)
2x 2 GHz G5: 42 s
1x 1 GHz G4: 85 s
2x Xeon 3.06 GHz: 35 s
1x Athlon 64FX 2.2 GHz: 41 s
1x P4 3.2 GHz: 39 s

UT 2003 Asbestos flyby 1024x768
2x 2 GHz G5: 67 fps
1x 1 GHz G4: 33 fps
2x Xeon 3.06 GHz: 197 fps
1x Athlon 64FX 2.2 GHz: 203 fps
1x P4 3.2 GHz: 203 fps

http://www.heise.de/ct/03/20/098/

Another UT2K3 comparison can be found here, this time using Radeon 9800 Pros and scores from xlr8 & AcesHardware:

P4 3.4 GHz EE (?) RAM, Radeon 9800 Pro, Asbestos Botmatch 1280x1024x32: 104.4

P4 3.2 GHz EE (?) RAM, Radeon 9800 Pro, Asbestos Botmatch 1280x1024x32: 99.7

P4 3.2 GHz (?) RAM, Radeon 9800 Pro, Asbestos Botmatch 1280x1024x32: 90.4

G5 2.0 (x2) 1.5GB RAM, Radeon 9800 Pro, Asbestos Botmatch 1024x768x32: 58.8

G4 1.25 (x2) 1.5GB RAM, Radeon 9800 Pro, Asbestos Botmatch 1024x768x32: 34.51

Finally here are some Cinebench 2003 scores using the current version:

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************
Tester : 
Processor : G5
MHz : 1.8GHz
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : OS X 10.2.7
Graphics Card : gF FX
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>
****************************************************
Rendering (Single CPU): 188 CB-CPU 
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU 
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 227 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 605 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 936 CB-GFX 
OpenGL Speedup: 4.12
****************************************************

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************
Tester           : Highest Performance 2
Processor        : Dual G5
MHz              : 2GHz
Number of CPUs   : 2
Operating System : 10.2.7
Graphics Card    : ATI Radeon 9600 Pro
Resolution       : 1024 x 768
Color Depth      : 24 bit
****************************************************
Rendering (Single   CPU): 220 CB-CPU 
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 398 CB-CPU 
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.81
Shading (CINEMA 4D)                : 265 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 701 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1404 CB-GFX 
OpenGL Speedup: 5.29
****************************************************

Processor : 3GHz P4/HT
MHz : 3260
Number of CPUs : 2 (actually 1 with hyper threading)
Operating System : XP

Graphics Card : 9700Pro

Rendering (Single CPU): 319 CB-CPU 
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 383 CB-CPU 

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.20

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 327 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1491 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2544 CB-GFX 

OpenGL Speedup: 7.78

Hyperthreading ON:
CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************
Tester           : sw
Processor        : Xeon
MHz              : 3.06 GHz
Number of CPUs   : 4
Operating System : Windows XP Pro SP1
Graphics Card    : ATI FireGL X1
Resolution       : 1600 x 1200
Color Depth      : 32 bit
****************************************************
Rendering (Single   CPU): 306 CB-CPU 
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 650 CB-CPU 
Multiprocessor Speedup: 2.12
Shading (CINEMA 4D)                : 301 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1267 CB-GFX 
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2084 CB-GFX 
OpenGL Speedup: 6.92
****************************************************

http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/p...0920455&p=1

Link to post
Share on other sites
disgaean

Now that the Athlon 64 and Athlon FX are officially out today many of these benchmark results are have become slightly outdated. For now here's an updated version of the UT2K3 Asbestos Botmatch scores from AcesHardware:

Athlon 64 FX-53 2.4 GHz 119.8 ?
Athlon 64 FX-51 2.2 GHz 109.6 ?
Athlon 64 2.2 GHz Single Channel 106.3 ?
Athlon 64 3200+ 104.4 ?
P4 3.4 GHz EE 104.4 ?
P4 3.2 GHz EE 99.4 ?
P4 3.2 GHz "C" 90.4 ?
P4 2.8 GHz "C" 83.3 ?
P4 2.4 GHz "C" 76.2 ?
Athlon XP 3200+ 85.5 ?
Athlon 2700+ 72.7 ?
Athlon 2500+ 71.6
G5 2.0 (x2) (1024x768x32): 58.8
G4 1.25 (x2) (1024x768x32): 34.51

Link to post
Share on other sites
the evn show

Does it really matter how fast a g5 runs games? If gaming were even a small issue for someone purchasing a computer then a new macintosh would be excluded in seconds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
eth3l

No, it does nto matter.

Its just thats the "benchmark" to determine how powerful a PROC is.

Its like 0-60 in a car. Really that does not mean much, but it is simply a good indication of the power of a car (no flaming on this issue please,it was jsut an analogy)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ravager

Alright, I'll throw in what I know and what I believe here. If it's wrong, then I take it back.

My understanding to the reason why a 700Mhz (somewhere around there) XBOX runs games better than many PCs is because the makers of the games do not have to worry about a large variance in computer configurations (software, hardware). On a console, you have ONE xbox. All the xboxes have the same specs. So for the XBOX there is less worrying about supporting the tons of software and hardware configs out there.

Having the said, I feel that the Mac is sort of like a console compared to the PC. You have a very small market for the Macs. You have one company that designs these computers. In the PC world, you have makers like Dell, Gateway, or you can even get your own custom PC built. Since all Macs are very similar, game makers can more easily design a game that supports a fairly limited hardware and software configuration. Thus, at the moment, even though Macs don't seem as fast as PCs, it's the way they handle the games and apps. Hell, you can start up an arguement saying today's consoles are faster than the Mac G4.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the evn show

Having the said, I feel that the Mac is sort of like a console compared to the PC. You have a very small market for the Macs

Does it really matter how fast a g5 runs games? If gaming were even a small issue for someone purchasing a computer then a new macintosh would be excluded in seconds. Anyhow:

EDIT: I'm having no luck with quotes today.

Think about the x86 market for a minute: how many processors are there? Two - how larger are the functional differences? Some have SSE2, Some have 3DNow! otherwise the instructions are the same. Compiler flags should handle the different optimizations (for p4 vs athlon) though most are just targeted for i686 for compatibility.

How is the sound handled? The majority of x86 systems run Creative soundcards so EAX is the major 'wierd' extention. For most you can just write for DirectSound.

What video cards are available? most gamers are using Nvidia or ATI offerings (the same used in macs). How do you write for them? OpenGL or Direct3D.

One reason x86 PCs took off as a gaming platform is because the environment became so standaradized.

You have one company that designs these computers. In the PC world, you have makers like Dell, Gateway, or you can even get your own custom PC built.
You still write games using the same APIs: WinAPI/COM/whatever, Direct3D/OpenGL, and Direct Sound. Developers don't have to think about what soundcard, videocard, hard drive, etc are in the computer.
Since all Macs are very similar, game makers can more easily design a game that supports a fairly limited hardware and software configuration.
Thus, at the moment, even though Macs don't seem as fast as PCs
The seam plenty fast in video editing, encryption, compilation, sound editing, photoshop, etc. Games seam to be the only really problematic areas.
, it's the way they handle the games and apps

Exactly. It's not so much that the hardware is terrible for gaming (it may be - we don't know) but that the API available are either not suitable (possibly) or that developers don't care to spend the same amount of time optimizing for the differences in the 'port'.

To find out for sure we could compare games running on similar APIs, on a simlar OS and see how performance compares: unfortunatly tux racer isn't the most demanding benchmark out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
disgaean

Why is everyone focusing on the gaming benchmarks? The CT magazine scores are almost entirely application benchmarks.

Here's some Lightwave 7.5 scores from AnandTech and PCMagazine that show some Single Processor PCs versus a Dual G5:

Rad. Ref. Scene
P4 EE 3.2GHz ? ? ? ? ? 42.5 sec
P4 3.2C ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?46.0 sec
P4 3.0C ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?48.4 sec
Athlon 64 FX 51 2.2GHz 49.3 sec
Athlon 64 2.2GHz ? ? ? 50.6 sec
Dual G5 2GHz ? ? ? ? ? 51.1 sec
Athlon 64 3200+ ? ? ? ?54.5 sec

Raytrace Scene
Athlon 64 FX 51 2.2GHz 87.9 sec
Athlon 64 2.2GHz ? ? ? 88.3 sec
P4 EE 3.2GHz ? ? ? ? ? 89.3 sec
P4 3.2C ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?93.1 sec
Athlon 64 2.2GHz ? ? ? 96.4 sec
P4 3.0C ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?99.1 sec
Dual G5 2GHz ? ? ? ? ?112.0 sec

Link to post
Share on other sites
Southern Patriot
unfortunatly tux racer isn't the most demanding benchmark out there.

Yeah, but it is one of the most fun! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zombie9920

I see that all of the x86 flaming came to a dead stop. <sarcasm mode on>No, Apple doesn't lie about benchmarks<sarcasm mode off>.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dashel

Wow, a G5 is good at Photoshop. Who whoula thunk it?

Still waiting on some real benchmarks...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim Dorr
Wow, a G5 is good at Photoshop. Who whoula thunk it?

Still waiting on some real benchmarks...

What? A benchmark using one the PRIMARY peices of software people use the computer for isn't "real" enough for you? Sorry to inform you, but number crunching ability actually has little to do with how fast the computer can get your job done...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Miran
the difference between the 1.6 and the rest of the g5 line is a bit much. upgrading it would require the purchase of a new motherboard and a new processor etc.. etc..

why do all that when he can just sell it and buy another better one? it's cheaper this way as well. a 1.6 g5 cannot be put into any other computer but the 1.6 g5 or up so what kind of fool would he have to be to try and sell the processor or whatever by itself.

you should think a little before you make irrelevant posts.

I really appreciate the insult at the end there. Really a sign of maturity. I was asking a question, not stating a fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.