PDA

View Full Version : a challenge to all pc users who prowl these boards.


Mord
May 24, 2005, 01:41 PM
allot of people have been saying the g5 get's owned by intel/AMD and every benchmark they have seen has proved it, please if this is your opinion can you post some links to some benchmarks.

the rules:

no benchmarks comparing different apps i dont care that mac the ripper is 20% slower on a g5 than whatever you use on your pc is.

dont even try to use Gflops as a measure of performence.

no overclocked benchmarks unless it's overclocked to the speed of a shipping cpu.

when showing comparison calculate the cost per % of performance compared to the fastest rig, retail only no self builds.

if in two weeks on tuesday there is not conclusive evidence that the G5 is slow i'm putting this thread in my sig and in every thread someone says "mac's are slow and they get owned by AMD/intel"

keep it clean no flamming, that includes pointing out bad grammar/spelling.

may the best cpu win.

cr2sh
May 24, 2005, 01:49 PM
Can you provide us with links to proper benchmarks? Name one or tell us where to find it... I'll run it on my Ahtlon 64 machine.... and my Dell Pentium M. :D

feakbeak
May 24, 2005, 01:57 PM
Why are you excluding self-builds? That's one of the advantages of x86 hardware - you can use the components you like and install Windows/Linux. Just because Apple keeps their system closed doesn't mean when you compare platforms you have to put Apple's contraints on the competition. If that's the case you have to put malware on the G5 before running your benchmarks. :D

AMD/Intel systems can be self-built, that does not make them invalid for benchmarking purposes.

Mord
May 24, 2005, 02:00 PM
i'm asking for the benchmarks, we have all seen barefeats and apple's benchmarks but allot of people quote mythical benchmarks where the g5 gets crushed.

as for self builds, it's not fair for price comparison, i have a self build pc myself but the average joe dose not, for benchmark info self builds are fine just not for price comparison, and if they were they need licensed software.

and cr2sh yours is a good rig to compare to a 1.8GHz G5, when someone here posts with a imac g5 or a 1.8GHz PM (dual or single you can disable a cpu with chud tools)

and freakbeak seeing as there is no malware to speak of bar opener which just dose as it says, it opens, that would be a pointless exercise, i'm not denying that you can get a pc tower for less than a powermac or you cant get a 15" laptop with a faster cpu for less than a powerbook what i try to say is that for (exactly) what you get it's pretty good value.

Blackheart
May 24, 2005, 02:11 PM
Why are you excluding self-builds? That's one of the advantages of x86 hardware - you can use the components you like and install Windows/Linux. Just because Apple keeps their system closed doesn't mean when you compare platforms you have to put Apple's contraints on the competition. If that's the case you have to put malware on the G5 before running your benchmarks. :D

AMD/Intel systems can be self-built, that does not make them invalid for benchmarking purposes.

One of the purposes of performing this benchmark is to figure the "price of performance" for the systems involved. Self-builds are not in the same category as Apple simply because Apple is a retail computer manufacturer. If comparisons are to be made to Apple hardware, with respect to price, then an adequate comparison would need to be drawn across the board. i.e. using retail manufacturers such as Dell and Alienware.

Comparing a self-build here, would be much like building a car from scratch (using much of the same parts that a manufacturer would use) and calling it cheaper than retail because you were able to save yourself the money that the manufacturer would have stacked onto the original prices of the parts.

Retail manufacturers offer a qualitative value to the products they sell. Apple, Dell, Alienware, etc. all offer warranty and service for their products. A self-build does not include this cost (don't think I'm going to sit here and argue the dollar value of this service for pages on end), so in order to make the comparison fair (and not nullify the value of the services provided by any manufacturer), every computer involved will have this service. Hence, no self-builds.

Mord
May 24, 2005, 02:13 PM
note we are not bashing self builds, just saying it's unfair in a price comparison.

feakbeak
May 24, 2005, 02:51 PM
and freakbeak seeing as there is no malware to speak of bar opener which just dose as it says, it opens, that would be a pointless exercise, i'm not denying that you can get a pc tower for less than a powermac or you cant get a 15" laptop with a faster cpu for less than a powerbook what i try to say is that for (exactly) what you get it's pretty good value.freakbeak? :confused:

As for the malware I could whip up a little app for OS X that leaks memory for you! :D

If you are doing price comparisons I can see why self-builds aren't fair. However, for a computer enthusiast that just wants the most powerful machine out there cost isn't going to be as big of an issue and being able to pick your components is a big plus - x86 wins hands down in that arena.

I don't really care about benchmarks so much because there are far too many factors involved. It is way too easy to skew the numbers in favor of what you prefer. There are some lowel-level benchmarks that are straight-forward such as how long it takes to copy a large file or crunch through some floating point arithmetic. This may rule out factors such as the efficiency of the operating system libraries since these simple tasks can easily be coded in assembly. However, these types of benchmarks are not practical and do not really convey any useful information for daily use of your computer.

Higher level benchmarking such as FPS measurements on games or rendering times in PS are more practical but the number of variables involved does not make it a fair comparison between hardware. Many applications are optimized for particular instructions sets (i.e. Altivec) and/or rely low-level libraries such as Quartz, CoreImage, DirectX, etc. Plus these apps also rely on the efficiency of the operating systems to manage resources, etc.

When it comes down to it your experience and perception of performance hinges on many things other than raw computing power which is difficult to accurately measure in any meaningful manner. I tend to agree with Apple's mindset that is more about your "computing experience". There are things like I about Apple's hardware, OS and software and there are things I like about x86, Windows and Windows apps. Experiment with all the options and use what you like the most.

Now, I am not saying benchmarks are completely useless. I think they do serve as a vague reference to how hardware performs, but you can't take it too seriously or think that a few points here or there makes one system better than another. If you use common sense and objectivity I think you can come to some reasonable conclusions. Apple is lagging behind in laptop performance these days. I know the G4's pack more punch per cycle but they are nearly 1 GHz behind and the FSB can only get up to 167 MHz - not a powerful combination. I don't think it's bad, but it's not comparable to what's going into high-end x86 laptops these days. The Power Mac G5 is doing well in my opinion. The only criticisms I have are the lack of PCIe and that for a huge case the expansion in terms of empty drive bays is rather pathetic. I think the new AMD Athlon 64 X2 and Intel Pentium D's will be giving the G5 a run for its money. Lets hope IBM can get dual-core G5's out within the next 6 months to keep pace.

Hector, I understand you started this thread to try to quelch x86 fanboys who just come here to bash on PowerPC hardware. I am obviously not one of those people. However, I don't understand what any of these benchmark tests will prove. Numbers are numbers and can be manipulated towards one's desired hypothesis. My advice to computer users concerned with benchmarks is this: Try to obtain a good understanding of how hardware and software works together, use common sense and remain objective. Then, purchase the hardware/software that best fits your needs and that you enjoy using. Forget what other people say, it is irrelevant.

ArcticFox
May 24, 2005, 02:58 PM
I'd like to participate in this when I get my dualie G5, but unfourtunately I have a home-brewed system that isn't exactly the fastest out (it's an AthlonXP 3200+).

HOWEVER, if I can get my paws on the Mac version of Photoshop CS, I'll pit it against the PC version of CS I have on this box for kicks, and run whatever other benchmark I can find that's the same on PC/Mac, then post my feelings and comparisons on the two different platforms.

I really wish Bapco would make a Mac version of Sysmark, that'd be interesting.

Mord
May 24, 2005, 02:58 PM
this thread is not out to prove the G5 is fast it's to prove that all these mythical benchmarks these people quote dont exist.

as for self builds, if you license all the software they are not that cheap,

just to state my opinion on x86-ppc comparisons.

K8=G5=P4 of K8's PR rateing (approx)

oh and no game benchmarks, they are heavily biased to the pc.

csubear
May 24, 2005, 03:24 PM
http://www.gromacs.org/benchmarks/single.php
Gromacs is a computational chemistry tool that uses Newtonian mechanics to simulate the movement of protiens.

Its open source, and runs just about every where. It does not depend on a graphics card, just cpu and memory.

The systems are not "up to date" but are very repersentive of what each arch can do. The only system on the line up that beats a dual 2.0 G5 is a quad 2.0 Opteron.

csubear
May 24, 2005, 03:27 PM
Also notice that the G5 has the best pre-chip/pre-ghz ratios.(this is the column call rate) It only loses the a power3 and an alpha in this indicator.

Dreadnought
May 24, 2005, 04:24 PM
http://www.gromacs.org/benchmarks/single.php
Gromacs is a computational chemistry tool that uses Newtonian mechanics to simulate the movement of protiens.

Its open source, and runs just about every where. It does not depend on a graphics card, just cpu and memory.

The systems are not "up to date" but are very repersentive of what each arch can do. The only system on the line up that beats a dual 2.0 G5 is a quad 2.0 Opteron.

Sounds a lot like Folding@Home, but you can't compair hte result of F@H of one platform with the other because of the optimized codes for windoos, unfortunately for the mac the code isn't completely optimized, but with every revision, they tweak it a bit.

csubear
May 24, 2005, 04:42 PM
Sounds a lot like Folding@Home, but you can't compair hte result of F@H of one platform with the other because of the optimized codes for windoos, unfortunately for the mac the code isn't completely optimized, but with every revision, they tweak it a bit.

Not true. Its not quite folding at home, same concept, perhaps sharing some of the code, but F@H is solving the problem in a different way(distributed).

I worked on a module for this project for a while and it is NOT optimized for windooos (click on the link and look at the OSs these machines are running, nobody in this field uses windows). It has a great deal of optimization BOTH SSE2 and Altivec.

This app will show you the true horsepower a cpu has. This is something they run on supercomputers.

If you are looking for numbers look at those on the gromacs site. It really tests processors, processors interconnects, and memory. There is very little disc IO.

This app is a prime example of the reasons people are building super computers out of G5s. With a dual 2.0 g5 you can approach the performance of a 4 processor opertron box.

Mord
May 24, 2005, 04:57 PM
i'm just waiting until jiggy2 and co arrive :p

Gokhan
May 24, 2005, 06:15 PM
as a person who loves macs and g5's i would say apple's have their advantage's over pc's at some things but then so do pc's

its about what programs you use and which os you as a person feel comfortable with not how fast the thing runs altough that is a factor which i would give to the pc many programs (gadget show etc) have proved it a mac is just not as fast but this is not the fault of the mac the software is to blame many devolpers lazy conversion of windows program for mac are not optimized for the mac like the pc but pure processing power goes to the pc of course when steve pops the 3ghz barrier then things will get cooking (:

also i dont like apple's monopoly attitude at times
with a pc a motherboard goes wrong you go anywhere pick up a replacement with a apple a logic board goes wrong kiss it goodbye or rip your arm off !!

G5Unit
May 24, 2005, 06:21 PM
If you asked me, I would say that if a P4 ran on Tiger, it would be pretty darn fast.

Xtremehkr
May 24, 2005, 07:23 PM
From what I have seen, the PC Users just seem to hang out so that they can add negative rating to positive stories and positive comments to negative ones.

There really aren't any trolls on the board.

Though poor Lacero is constantly incurring the wrath of new people, and occasionally older ones too. Unintentionally though most of the time.

freiheit
May 24, 2005, 08:44 PM
Frankly I'm pretty skeptical of most benchmarks as a general rule. Similarly configured systems to whatever I'm using at the time make claims of 40-50MB/s hard drive throughput. I run the same benchmark and see maybe 20-25MB/s, with some individual tests (like uncached writes) suffering at about 1MB/s. So except in identical systems with just one component switched out to make the comparison, I don't put much faith in benchmarks for Mac or for PC.

cr2sh
May 24, 2005, 09:00 PM
From what I have seen, the PC Users just seem to hang out so that they can add negative rating to positive stories and positive comments to negative ones.

I disagree.

However, I'm a mac user at heart.

I wish there was a cross-platform standard for benchmarking.
The one m,entioned above sounds nice... but I don't have a compiler and am not going to spend my night figuring out how to do it.

Xtremehkr
May 24, 2005, 09:29 PM
I disagree.

However, I'm a mac user at heart.

I wish there was a cross-platform standard for benchmarking.
The one m,entioned above sounds nice... but I don't have a compiler and am not going to spend my night figuring out how to do it.

I was keeding. You have to wonder though, about who is behind the seemingly incoherent ratings at times. I know there are PC users here, I just don't understand why they are PC users. Same rule applies :D

Mord
May 25, 2005, 01:47 AM
as a person who loves macs and g5's i would say apple's have their advantage's over pc's at some things but then so do pc's

its about what programs you use and which os you as a person feel comfortable with not how fast the thing runs altough that is a factor which i would give to the pc many programs (gadget show etc) have proved it a mac is just not as fast but this is not the fault of the mac the software is to blame many devolpers lazy conversion of windows program for mac are not optimized for the mac like the pc but pure processing power goes to the pc of course when steve pops the 3ghz barrier then things will get cooking (:

also i dont like apple's monopoly attitude at times
with a pc a motherboard goes wrong you go anywhere pick up a replacement with a apple a logic board goes wrong kiss it goodbye or rip your arm off !!

as i have said this head is not about debating which is better, it's just about proving the xeon/opteron are not way ahead of the G5 as most people say

and i dont think pure processing power dose go to the pc if you go to barefeats when the benchmarks have been equally optimized the G5 dose well, just look at quake 3, it's so old it's had about every optimization in the book, it's the one game that can be used as a fair benchmark.

what i want to see is if any of the pc users can pull these benchmarks because personally i think they are BS.

rmanger
May 25, 2005, 04:52 AM
I definitely believe that the G5 is truly the fastest desktop processor chip among all those AMDs and Intels out there, without a doubt.

However, this takes into account that everything is fair. The problem is, very little is fair towards Macs. I give the following four reasons:

1. It isn't fair that PCs can be self-built (saving much money), while Macs can't be self-built.

2. It isn't fair that Windows has an over 90% user base, even though we have a better OS.

3. It isn't fair that developers don't optimize their software on the Macs as much as they do on the PC.

4. It isn't fair that games are considered a standard benchmark in most mainstream circles which, coincidentally, is the single weak point of the Mac.

In short, Doom 3 is why many people think Macs are slow and overpriced. :p

But seriously, the unfortunate fact is that all the unfairness means that benchmarks will usually go in favor of the PC. Unless you're Apple.

Mord
May 25, 2005, 05:06 AM
But seriously, the unfortunate fact is that all the unfairness means that benchmarks will usually go in favor of the PC. Unless you're Apple.

or you do a fair benchmarks with real world application tests aka the stuff people acctually use there macs for.

justkeith
May 25, 2005, 05:56 AM
But one thing always baffles me about the economics of self-build ...

Doesn't the build time have a monetary value as well???

How much time / effort / money does it take just to locate all the relevant components, etc.


I'm not a particularly high earner but I reckon my rates for building a computer would have to be somewhere between £15 - 20 per hour --- otherwise I might as well get on with my job & pay others to get on with theirs ...

A couple of days work would soon wipe out any 'savings' ...

Mord
May 25, 2005, 06:30 AM
But one thing always baffles me about the economics of self-build ...

Doesn't the build time have a monetary value as well???

How much time / effort / money does it take just to locate all the relevant components, etc.


I'm not a particularly high earner but I reckon my rates for building a computer would have to be somewhere between £15 - 20 per hour --- otherwise I might as well get on with my job & pay others to get on with theirs ...

A couple of days work would soon wipe out any 'savings' ...

it takes me about 15 mins to assemble, and then an hour to install stuff.

the point is it's a minority that builds systems and it really dose not cost that much less when you buy all the software (which i and most people obviously dont).

Platform
May 25, 2005, 06:49 AM
VERY good thread....now let's see some REAL reseault rather than just talk ;)

Mord
May 25, 2005, 06:55 AM
the fact that jiggy and other pc users here have not posted in the thread bodes well to the fact that i'm right.

Dont Hurt Me
May 25, 2005, 07:05 AM
Didnt anyone learn anything from the Doom3 thread? For me as a consumer gaming benches is where its at. I really dont care how fast iphoto springs open or how fast a blur can be done. I want to know how fast UT2K4 can run with everything on or Doom3 with everything on. I notice a lot of benches showing Doom3 with shadows off,med detail etc, whats that about? Barefeats have some interesting numbers on the new iMac vs last years and it was doing about 3 more frames. G5 is overrated and blown up by Apple. If it was so fantastic they wouldnt had to resort to dropping 2 of them into a PowerMac. Dec 2003 Macworld & Macaddict had benches and the dual 2.0 was holding its own against a single FX-51 2.2 ghz in everything but gaming. In gaming the Macs took a whipping. Anyways those benches were not shown on their web site just in the Magazines.

feakbeak
May 25, 2005, 07:12 AM
But one thing always baffles me about the economics of self-build ...

Doesn't the build time have a monetary value as well???

How much time / effort / money does it take just to locate all the relevant components, etc.


I'm not a particularly high earner but I reckon my rates for building a computer would have to be somewhere between £15 - 20 per hour --- otherwise I might as well get on with my job & pay others to get on with theirs ...

A couple of days work would soon wipe out any 'savings' ...I don't think most people build PCs to save money. Most people build PCs because they are enthusiasts and enjoy the activity. That's why I do it. I like picking out each part, putting it together, tweaking it, etc. If I didn't enjoy the experience there is no way I would spend the time and effort to build a PC myself just to save a few bucks.

cr2sh
May 25, 2005, 07:25 AM
A couple of days work would soon wipe out any 'savings' ...

So, if we're including 2 week "build time" of pc's shouldn't we also include the 4 month "ship time" on a lot of new macs? How about the "Wait for anouncement time" which is REALLY popular in the Mac crowd... 4 months... 6 months.. a year of sitting around "I'm not ordering till we hit 3GHz" time?

I'd argue no. It's interesting to me and fun to research parts, its fun to build the system... it's fun to surf these boards, its fun to think about rumors. Its a wash...

Mord
May 25, 2005, 07:41 AM
Didnt anyone learn anything from the Doom3 thread? For me as a consumer gaming benches is where its at. I really dont care how fast iphoto springs open or how fast a blur can be done. I want to know how fast UT2K4 can run with everything on or Doom3 with everything on. I notice a lot of benches showing Doom3 with shadows off,med detail etc, whats that about? Barefeats have some interesting numbers on the new iMac vs last years and it was doing about 3 more frames. G5 is overrated and blown up by Apple. If it was so fantastic they wouldnt had to resort to dropping 2 of them into a PowerMac. Dec 2003 Macworld & Macaddict had benches and the dual 2.0 was holding its own against a single FX-51 2.2 ghz in everything but gaming. In gaming the Macs took a whipping. Anyways those benches were not shown on their web site just in the Magazines.

to suggest a mac for gaming is stupid we are not arguing that, it's not about the speed of the cpu it's about optimization, the G5 dose well on games which were equally optimized like quake 3, comparing a dual to a single is silly, the g5 powermac should be compared to a dual opteron/xeon not an athlon or P4. the g5 is about the same clock for clock as the K8 as i have said many times before SMP but loose on single threaded things like games.

dont hurt me just be happy with a pc and mac, the mac will not be competitive in the gameing arena untill/if apple gets at least a 20% market share which wont be for a while so stop bitching a whining about games. For a company with such a small market share it dose pretty well in gameing, this thread is about the raw speed and that the G5 is not behind the curve we are not discussing open gl Vs directX this is what cpu has the most raw speed in applications that mac users actually use.

Xiabelle
May 25, 2005, 07:52 AM
I've been self-building my own PCs for almost 10 years. Now, mostly, this is adding onto and upgrading old systems. However, I consider replacing a motherboard to be starting over so let's say that I last did it a couple of months ago. Why? I can get precisely what I want for a cheaper price, and building a PC is NOT hard at all. In fact, given how well things are color coded nowadays, you really don't even need to have much more than a little common sense to be able to tell where things go. The hardest part is the jumpers, if they need to be set.

The last build I did, when I bought a new cpu/MB combo, took me about 2 hours to complete. Why? Because I was clueless about P4s. The actual install itself took me 15 minutes. Then I had another two hours or so of swearing as I couldn't get it to power up, because I didn't realize that P4s required two power inputs :) My bad, it just took me a while to find the info and now I know. However, I do work on PCs for a living.

Frankly, the PC is faster in some regards than my mac, although my Mac /is/ a Mini, and the 1.42 with base ram doesn't compare to a P4 3.0 with 512 MB.

The benchmarks aren't really important to me. It's all based on what I want to do. I play a few games -- and really, given my favorites aren't available on the mac platform and the PC is a good gaming machine, I'm going to use it. Besides, I don't have any of the problems and horror stories I hear people gripe about. I run a clean machine and it's (mostly) stable. The mini is the general-purpose machine right now, and I'm trying to learn it. I don't see as much difference as some people do between them, outside of trying to still find some acceptable replacements for some specialty shareware I use.

Dont Hurt Me
May 25, 2005, 07:52 AM
So we are picking and choosing performance and gaming is excluded because its a Mac? Interesting indeed.

csubear
May 25, 2005, 08:22 AM
VERY good thread....now let's see some REAL reseault rather than just talk ;)

http://www.gromacs.org/benchmarks/single.php

Please look at this if you want to see REAL results that REALLY test the cpu and the memory bandwidth.

Mord
May 25, 2005, 08:23 AM
So we are picking and choosing performance and gaming is excluded because its a Mac? Interesting indeed.


shock horror most mac users dont game.

cube
May 25, 2005, 08:33 AM
self-build is more expensive than prebuilt. The advantage is that you can configure it with the exact components that you want.

zelmo
May 25, 2005, 08:43 AM
shock horror most mac users dont game.

I'm a Mac user and I love gaming, but not on my Mac. Might it be more accurate to say that most Mac users don't use a Mac for gaming, mainly because we accept that it is inferior to the PC for most current games?

Mord
May 25, 2005, 08:56 AM
dident mean it quite like that, i use my xbox allot and play WoW on my cube every now and again.

jiggie2g
May 25, 2005, 10:08 AM
You'll excuse me for taking my sweet time , you do realize that there is a 5hr time difference between London and NY. I work , Have a very bitchy girlfriend not including my girls on the side :D plus other responsibilities. so please be paitent and i will gladly kick ur G5's ass.

Well I guess I am disqualified because i don't use crappy Dell desktops but rather home built PC.

I also would like to ask that G5 owners post thier Cinebench results in 1 CPU rendering. Particular i'd like 2 see the 2ghz and 2.5ghz G5, if anyone already has a 2.3ghz and 2.7ghz G5 they are welcome as well.

Hector are there any programs in particular you would like me 2 use in order to make this comparision , and do Si Sandra scores count?

feakbeak
May 25, 2005, 10:17 AM
Well I guess I am disqualified because i don't use crappy Dell desktops but rather home built PC.

I also would like to ask that G5 owners post thier Cinebench results in 1 CPU rendering.

Hector are there any programs in particular you would like me 2 use in order to make this comparision , and do Si Sandra scores count?I'd like to see your scores posted. Even if you want to throw them out because of this particular comparison for pricing reasons. I think self-built PC marks should be posted to show what is available on the platform - even if some wouldn't never do it themselves, it's nice to know it's an option. Plus, system building is quite easy these days.

Edit: jiggie2g, I see you added all the chest-thumping and trash talk after I quoted you. :)

plinden
May 25, 2005, 10:34 AM
I was keeding. You have to wonder though, about who is behind the seemingly incoherent ratings at times. I know there are PC users here, I just don't understand why they are PC users.

Don't really have a choice? I get a PC laptop from work, an IBM Thinkpad, which is a pretty decent machine. It would actually have been less expensive for them to buy me a PowerBook, but the IT department is IBM/Wintel only.

Then I have 3 year old PC from the days before I wanted a Mac. Try suggesting replacing that when your wife looks at you blankly and says, "what's wrong with the one you've got?" and there isn't anything wrong with it (except that it's not a Mac)

It's hard to justify spending upwards of $4000 to replace two PCs if they still work with no problems. Especially if you're cheap. Like I am.

Anyway, back to the subject of benchmarks - this was an interest thread I posted to a few months back, about compiling Java using different OSs: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=108938

I found that my 1.6GHz P-M compiled slightly slower than the time given for a 1.5GHz PowerBook (even though Java SDK 1.4 is supposed to be slower in Mac OS X than in Windows) when I had the default background services and the virus scanner running. Disabling unnecessary services and the virus checker halved the time needed to do the compilation, so the PC was almost twice as fast as the 1.5GHz PB at raw compilation. Compiling, of course, involves a lot of disk access which cause the Windows indexing service and the virus checker to use a lot of CPU cycles.

However, even this benchmark doesn't say much about the raw speeds of the different CPUs, since as I've said, the Java 1.4 SDK is acknowledged to be not as well optimized for the Mac.

Edit: it would be interesting to see if compiling under Linux on Mac hardware would make any difference.

Frobozz
May 25, 2005, 10:34 AM
I definitely believe that the G5 is truly the fastest desktop processor chip among all those AMDs and Intels out there, without a doubt.

However, this takes into account that everything is fair. The problem is, very little is fair towards Macs. I give the following four reasons:


I totally hear you. For sake of getting into this discussion I'm going to quote you, because I agree on all fronts... however, I have some (interesting?) points:


1. It isn't fair that PCs can be self-built (saving much money), while Macs can't be self-built.

This is true. But you won't get much _speed_ out of custom building a mac. You'd only save money. Maybe you could get DDR2 667 ram in some 3rd party motherboard, but the whole stability of a closed architecture would be lost. So, there are clearly pros and cons. Cheaper = less reliable.

2. It isn't fair that Windows has an over 90% user base, even though we have a better OS.

Amen. Although some of that is Apple's fault. I think now is the best time in Apple history to be a Mac user, though. I'm glad XP isn't as ugly as previous incarnations, but DAMN is it useless.

3. It isn't fair that developers don't optimize their software on the Macs as much as they do on the PC.

Yeah this is a major issue. Glenda Adams had a great rebuttal to the "Why is Doom 3 slower on a Mac" thread on IMG. Boils down to about 10 issues, many of which are somewhat obvious to us on these boards. However, some interesting ones were the efficiency in integer math in x86 land. There's less penalty in conversionto floating point (I guess.) Another was obvious, but is why Macs are much better at usability than a PC: we truly multitask, so no single app will ever get 100% of the CPU like on a PC. That's why running 10 apps at once on a Mac is the same user experience as 1 (RAM permitting), but on a PC it's a living hell. So, again, it's a tradeoff. I'd rather have a more productive work machine than a faster game machine.

4. It isn't fair that games are considered a standard benchmark in most mainstream circles which, coincidentally, is the single weak point of the Mac.

Indeed! But let's keep perspective. The people on this board, and most computer enthusiast boards, are gamers. So these are the benchmarks they flock to. It also goes to show you what these people do on their computers-- play games. They shell out $1000's of dollars for game machines. Well, I make a living on my Mac, and do so in a more efficient manner than my PC counterparts. So I'll let them have gaming benchmarks for now. Sometime in the future it'd be nice to get FPS parity, but it ain't a priority for me. Even 20% slower won't actually effect my gaming experience.

In short, Doom 3 is why many people think Macs are slow and overpriced. :p

However, Doom 3 only runs well on nVidia hardware. Whereas, ATI totally DOMINATES nVidia on nearly every other game on the PC. So, it does go to show how poorly a single application's benchmarks are for evaluation. It also goes to show, as Glenda pointed out, how PC vendors can highly optimize their software for particular applications. This is not really possible on the Mac.

But seriously, the unfortunate fact is that all the unfairness means that benchmarks will usually go in favor of the PC. Unless you're Apple.

Amen. Yeah Apple loves to quote 40 filter Photoshop tests. I guess that is applicable to photo editors in a high volume (magazine?) environment... but pretty much no one else. Furthermore, does it *really* matter if I can shave 5 seconds off a minute of work? Unless volume is paramount the answer is "no." Which bring me to my next point ...

If you need to shave a couple seconds (or more) off of volume work such as rendering or complex computation ... get an xServe. Apple, ahdns down, as the easiest to set up and fastest cluster computing on the planet. User oriented tasks will be faster on a Mac because you're more efficient on it, and you can offload non-user tasks like rendering to other computers.

jiggie2g
May 25, 2005, 11:18 AM
My PC

Here are my Preliminary Benchmarks , Please note that I just put this setup together a week ago so I am still tweaking.

So far I have gotten the Speed up to 2.5ghz / 512k L2. I know my CPU can do 2.7-2.8ghz but I am still using Corsair Value Select (cheap ram about $80 1GB 512x2)
so RAM is a limiting me from hitting max potential.

Settings are as follows:
AMD Athlon 64 3000+(Venice Core)@2.5ghz (313x8)
1GB DDR3200 Corsair Value Select , Timings 2-3-3-8 , Speed 208mhz
DFI Lanparty UT NF4 PCIe Currently Running 3xHTT , 939mhz eachway
Hitachi Deskstar 250GB SATA 7200rpm , 8MB cache , 8.5ms seek time
Leadtek Geforce 6600GT 128MB GDDR3 PCIe 16x


Cinebench Rendering 1 CPU : 348 CB-CPU


Si Sandra 2005 :


CPU Arithmetic Benchmark:

MY PC :
Dhrystone : ALU 11555 MIPS
Whetstone : FPU/iSSE 3951/5111 MFLOPS

By Comparision : P4-E 570 3.8ghz 1MB L2
Dhrystone : ALU 11115 MIPS
Whetstone FPU/iSSE2 4408/7934 MFLOPS

AMD Opteron 152 2.6ghz 1MB L2
Dhrystone : ALU 11573 MIPS
Whetstone FPU/iSSE2 4403/5242 MFLOPS


CPU Multi-Media Benchmark :

My PC:
Interger x4 aEMMX/aSSE 23836 it/s
Floating-Point x4 iSSE2 25645 it/s

By Comparison : P4-E 570 3.8ghz 1MB L2
Interger x4 aEMMX/aSSE 26856 it/s
Floating-Point x4 iSSE2 35810 it/s

AMD Opteron 152 2.6ghz 1MB L2
Interger x4 aEMMX/aSSE 24836 it/s
Floating-Point x4 iSSE2 26697 it/s


Memory Bandwidth Benchmark:

RAM Bandwidth Int Buff'd iSSE2 6124 MB/s
RAM Bandwidth Float Buff'd iSSE2 6042 MB/s

File System Benchmark:

SATA Drive 45MB/s

I think I did pretty well for now :D , Once I get some G.Skill PC4400 TCCD 2-2-2-5 RAM I know i can get another 20% out of this baby. plus hit 2.8ghz stable.

.............YOUR MOVE HECTOR :D

Mord
May 25, 2005, 01:14 PM
You'll excuse me for taking my sweet time , you do realize that there is a 5hr time difference between London and NY. I work , Have a very bitchy girlfriend not including my girls on the side :D plus other responsibilities. so please be paitent and i will gladly kick ur G5's ass.

Well I guess I am disqualified because i don't use crappy Dell desktops but rather home built PC.

I also would like to ask that G5 owners post thier Cinebench results in 1 CPU rendering. Particular i'd like 2 see the 2ghz and 2.5ghz G5, if anyone already has a 2.3ghz and 2.7ghz G5 they are welcome as well.

Hector are there any programs in particular you would like me 2 use in order to make this comparision , and do Si Sandra scores count?

a nice cross platform app i'd like to see though it may never happen is vue 5 http://www.e-onsoftware.com/, somone make a scene and post a screen shot of how long it takes to render, your not disqualified from benchmarks but you are from price comparison.

as for me i cant do any usefull benchmarks myself as all i have is a 550MHz cube a dual 450MHz cube and a 700MHz athlon (OC'd from 550 :P with multiplier mods and an 80w peltier)

IJ Reilly
May 25, 2005, 03:54 PM
it takes me about 15 mins to assemble, and then an hour to install stuff.

Go ahead, pull the other one. ;)

I built a PC recently and it took me more than 15 minutes just to unpack all of the boxes, and organize the instruction manuals and install discs. Granted this was my first effort, but it was an 8 hour job from box cutter to boot up, excluding the time to install XP. If I were to do it again, using the same components, I suppose I could cut that time in half. But much less than that? Come on!

feakbeak
May 25, 2005, 04:20 PM
Go ahead, pull the other one. ;)

I built a PC recently and it took me more than 15 minutes just to unpack all of the boxes, and organize the instruction manuals and install discs. Granted this was my first effort, but it was an 8 hour job from box cutter to boot up, excluding the time to install XP. If I were to do it again, using the same components, I suppose I could cut that time in half. But much less than that? Come on!
I agree. My first build took me about five hours from boxes to boot. My second build only took three hours. However, once you factor in the installation of the OS, drivers and basic software you're looking at a day project - if not, certainly enough to fill up a weekday evening. It doesn't take a lot of effort but certainly more than 15 minutes. I suppose if you had already unpacked and reviewed the hardware and sorted out all the case screws and cables, then maybe you could assmble it all in 15 minutes if you rushed, but it would be close. Besides, if you were in that much of a hurry you would be liable to make a mistake and fry your mobo or worse.

Plus, you have to consider if you are choosing to build your own PC you have to consider the time you spend researching and comparing components. For me, this usually takes serveral days if not a week or two (not solid time, obviously). The greatest benefit to building is to get the exact components and case that you want. Finding a nice case takes me forever. Half of the offerings are uglier than sin, once you weed those out you have to consider the cooling features, expansion options, what front ports you want, accessibility and layout, etc. It's certainly a task finding just the right case that fits your needs and style. Based on all this info, I don't understand the point in trivializing the effort required to build a system. Is it hard? No, but it takes a dedicated effort to do a good job. I enjoy it, but if you didn't like hardware it would really suck.

IJ Reilly
May 25, 2005, 04:36 PM
Exactly, exactly. It was an interesting exercise, but I wouldn't recommend it to people who don't have a technical inclination, or who don't care to have the "I built mine" bragging rights. The shopping time alone was hours -- and like you, the case was probably the biggest issue second only to the motherboard and CPU. Decide in a haste and repent in leisure, as they say. If saving every possible dollar is an issue, add in a few more hours for price comparisons.

I'd heard so many stories about saving a huge bundle by rolling your own PC -- and that's one of the reasons I decided to try it. Now I can say it just ain't so. Even discounting for my time, I didn't save much -- maybe $200, tops.

jiggie2g
May 25, 2005, 04:37 PM
I agree. My first build took me about five hours from boxes to boot. My second build only took three hours. However, once you factor in the installation of the OS, drivers and basic software you're looking at a day project - if not, certainly enough to fill up a weekday evening. It doesn't take a lot of effort but certainly more than 15 minutes. I suppose if you had already unpacked and reviewed the hardware and sorted out all the case screws and cables, then maybe you could assmble it all in 15 minutes if you rushed, but it would be close. Besides, if you were in that much of a hurry you would be liable to make a mistake and fry your mobo or worse.

Plus, you have to consider if you are choosing to build your own PC you have to consider the time you spend researching and comparing components. For me, this usually takes serveral days if not a week or two (not solid time, obviously). The greatest benefit to building is to get the exact components and case that you want. Finding a nice case takes me forever. Half of the offerings are uglier than sin, once you weed those out you have to consider the cooling features, expansion options, what front ports you want, accessibility and layout, etc. It's certainly a task finding just the right case that fits your needs and style. Based on all this info, I don't understand the point in trivializing the effort required to build a system. Is it hard? No, but it takes a dedicated effort to do a good job. I enjoy it, but if you didn't like hardware it would really suck.


But isn't that the case with just about everything in life , seeing thngs throught with hard work gives you a great sense of satisfaction. Thats what alot of the Mac users here don't understand about us PC guys. I we know every part from the Motherboard down to the kind of thermal paste we put on our CPU(Artic Silver 5). All these things to make something cool.

If people were just satified with having something that just works we'd all drive Honda Civics.

Mord
May 25, 2005, 04:47 PM
Go ahead, pull the other one. ;)

I built a PC recently and it took me more than 15 minutes just to unpack all of the boxes, and organize the instruction manuals and install discs. Granted this was my first effort, but it was an 8 hour job from box cutter to boot up, excluding the time to install XP. If I were to do it again, using the same components, I suppose I could cut that time in half. But much less than that? Come on!


my pc is built from scavenged parts, it takes about 15 mins max to scew in all this bits if you know what your doing, i just put it all together powered it up and poped in a windows XP disk and thta was done in about an hour.

i'm an apple cert technician it takes me about 20 mins to take my ibook down to pieces.

MBHockey
May 25, 2005, 04:48 PM
Isn't Sisoft's Sandra Windows only?

How about javascript benchmarks for cross platform tests?

MBHockey
May 25, 2005, 05:01 PM
Not sure how good these tests are, but, here's what i did.

I ran the JavaScript benchmarking test on both my PowerBook and my Parents PC with specifications as follows.

Both tests were run on the same 1.5 MBPS DSL connection, the Mac first, followed by the PC (not simulatenously).

Desktop PC:
-Pentium 4 @ 1.8 GHz
-512 MB of ddr 2100 ram
-Windows XP Pro
-FireFox 1.4
-Disabled virus scanner, spyware scanner

my PowerBook:
-G4 @ 1.0GHz
-1 GB of pc133 ram (damn bus speed!)
-MacOS X Tiger
-FireFox 1.4

Well, first i ran the test with Safari 2.0, and my PowerBook annihilated the PC (got around 11.5 seconds with Safari).

However, making it fair, i then did the test with both computers running the latest versions of FireFox.

The PC won, but by a hair. Check the screenshot for the results:
(Btw, i didn't realize Safari's JavaScript was this superior to FireFox's)

IJ Reilly
May 25, 2005, 06:30 PM
my pc is built from scavenged parts, it takes about 15 mins max to scew in all this bits if you know what your doing, i just put it all together powered it up and poped in a windows XP disk and thta was done in about an hour.

i'm an apple cert technician it takes me about 20 mins to take my ibook down to pieces.

Which only goes towards the argument that one can't fairly compare a home brew PC to an out-of-the-box Mac, or any other OEM PC for that matter.

Still, I can't see how you'd make it in 15 minutes, even if all the parts and tools were arrayed out in front of you in good order and nothing at all went wrong. I had several small things go sideways with my home brew project all of which cost me more than 15 minutes each -- cables that were just a bit too short, a drive that didn't quite want to fit in the bay, and so on. I'd estimate I spent two hours on those issues alone.

jiggie2g
May 26, 2005, 01:50 AM
Not sure how good these tests are, but, here's what i did.

I ran the JavaScript benchmarking test on both my PowerBook and my Parents PC with specifications as follows.

Both tests were run on the same 1.5 MBPS DSL connection, the Mac first, followed by the PC (not simulatenously).

Desktop PC:
-Pentium 4 @ 1.8 GHz
-512 MB of ddr 2100 ram
-Windows XP Pro
-FireFox 1.4
-Disabled virus scanner, spyware scanner

my PowerBook:
-G4 @ 1.0GHz
-1 GB of pc133 ram (damn bus speed!)
-MacOS X Tiger
-FireFox 1.4

Well, first i ran the test with Safari 2.0, and my PowerBook annihilated the PC (got around 11.5 seconds with Safari).

However, making it fair, i then did the test with both computers running the latest versions of FireFox.

The PC won, but by a hair. Check the screenshot for the results:
(Btw, i didn't realize Safari's JavaScript was this superior to FireFox's)



I did this same Test with Firefox in 6.93 sec

rmanger
May 26, 2005, 02:07 AM
MBHockey, don't worry about the bus speed. At only 1GHz, the bus speed isn't much of an issue. It's when you start hitting higher multipliers (around 10x and above) does bus speed really become a problem.

About Doom 3 Benchmarks:

DontHurtMe strikes a point about Doom 3 benchmarks--although it isn't a fair benchmark, Macs have to submit to it anyway. Yes, Quake 3 benchmarks are fair to both platforms, but those benchmarks are yesterdays news. Now it's Doom 3.

Other reasons why Doom 3 isn't as optimized as it should be is because the PC version was being optimized for 2+ years, while the Mac version was optimized for less than 6 months. Also, the PC version had much more manpower behind it than the Mac version. Too frickin' bad. Macs are still behind in Doom 3.

About Synthetic Benchmarks:

Usually, synthetic benchmarks are well optimized on both platforms, so the issue here is the actual compiler that makes the software. Even here the Mac loses. Let's compare compilers. The x86 gcc compiler is faster than the PPC version. Again, the x86 version has more years and manpower behind it. And let's not even mention Intel's own homebrewed compiler, which completely annihilates every other compiler out there. But we all know that synthetic benchmarks coming from Intel also have the most inflated numbers ever seen.

About Photoshop Benchmarks:

Now for a little humor :D . I've read enough MacAddict magazines to detect a pattern. The pattern goes like this.

1. MacAddict (MA) thinks that benchmarks are BS, but decide to do them anyway to appease certain readers.

2. MA selects Photoshop as their benchmarking program, run some tests, and find the Mac to be faster than previous generations, but slower than expected.

3. MA calls Apple to find out if anything is being done wrong. Apple gives MA some "advice" on how to do the benchmarks.

4. MA follows Apple's "advice", and gets much higher numbers.

5. MA concludes that the Mac in testing is faster, but benchmarks are still BS.

About Cross-Platform Benchmarks in General:

Cross-platform benchmarks are a bunch of BS. There are too many variables to consider, and everyone ends up arguing about it in the end.

Foniks Munkee
May 26, 2005, 02:24 AM
The 15 minutes might be an exageration (although you never know!), but I can certainly build one in an hour - but i am pretty practised - i've built around 50 seperate PC's for friends, family and work. First time took all night.

But one other aspect of this is that there are plenty of places that will build a PC from your selected components for $30AUS and then chuck on a 1 or 2 year warranty. This is probably the best thing about PC's IMHO - the customisation.

Still, I like to play the odds - Mac laptop for portability and pure functionality, PC for games (especially those that will never get ported and probably CAN'T be ported to consoles) and consoles for all the other games.

Anway - looking forward to seeing some results - this sounds interesting. ;)

Speaking of benchmarks - there was some benchmark that went around some time ago claiming Photoshop ran better under windows (i'm always sceptical about these claims about one platform being better than the other, especially when the benchmark is not from an impartial observer) - does anyone know if that was that an Alienware benchmark?

Oh and just one other thing - DELL and all those other manufactured PC's around the place - wouldn't be surprised if they didn't perform well in benchmarks, as a PC user I would NEVER buy them. They just aren't that good.

[edit] Wow - just reread that, sorry for the jumping all over the place..

PCMacUser
May 26, 2005, 03:11 AM
Go ahead, pull the other one. ;)

I built a PC recently and it took me more than 15 minutes just to unpack all of the boxes, and organize the instruction manuals and install discs. Granted this was my first effort, but it was an 8 hour job from box cutter to boot up, excluding the time to install XP. If I were to do it again, using the same components, I suppose I could cut that time in half. But much less than that? Come on!
With practice you can get hardware installed with incredible speed. A few years ago I worked for a hardware vendor and reached the point of being able to swap a PC motherboard in less than 5 minutes - this included removing the drives and cards, etc that were in the way, and swapping the CPU and RAM.

So it is true that you could indeed build a computer in about 15 minutes - provided the hardware was already removed from the packaging.

However when I'm building my OWN machine, I'll tend to invest twice as much time, to ensure I dot my i's and cross my t's.

Foniks Munkee
May 26, 2005, 04:06 AM
Yeah, A friend of mine who was working for an Apple reseller as a certified Apple tech was able to change the logic board in a titanium powerbook in around 10 minutes - I didn't believe him for a long time until I saw him do it. I swear he was unscrewing two screws at a time. I'm no Apple tech, but I understand that this is pretty impressive.

The catch was though that he ended up being given all the logic board replacements from there on in.

Mord
May 26, 2005, 04:20 AM
Yeah, A friend of mine who was working for an Apple reseller as a certified Apple tech was able to change the logic board in a titanium powerbook in around 10 minutes - I didn't believe him for a long time until I saw him do it. I swear he was unscrewing two screws at a time. I'm no Apple tech, but I understand that this is pretty impressive.

The catch was though that he ended up being given all the logic board replacements from there on in.


tibook logic boards are not too hard, the tibook is a very accessable powerbook, just pop the bottom off and with a few screws you can take the Hd, optical drive logic board and all the rest.

a big thing that saved me time is the fact that i used a slot A cpu which you dont have to muck about with thermal paste ect you just bung it in the slot (dident stop me 2 days after i put it together i took it apart and expoxyed a giant HSF and some ramsinks on the cache with three 60mm fans and a peltier) usually i take a while with the thermal paste and spend a while wiht my palate knife and some AS5.

ReanimationLP
May 26, 2005, 05:59 AM
:D this explains why I have a PC for gaming, and a Mac for everything else.

Capt Underpants
May 26, 2005, 07:23 AM
Check This. (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,8,00.asp). A SINGLE 2.2 GHz Athlon FX-51 beat the pants off of a Dual 2.0 GHz. It's not recent, but the 2.0 GHz G5 is still being sold and that fx-51 has been replaced a couple of times. I'm sure that when the Dual-Core Athlon 64's hit the market this month that they will blow the G5 out of the water.

Mord
May 26, 2005, 08:04 AM
premier was run in classic envioment on the mac which can only use one cpu, also office is not nearly as optimized for the mac as it is on the pc, excel even runs faster in vritual pc than it dose natively also all but one of the pc's had RAID arrays how fair is that exactly? the only fair tests there were quake 3 and photoshop which the g5 did fairly well in.

cube
May 26, 2005, 08:33 AM
the only fair tests there were quake 3 and photoshop which the g5 did fairly well in.

Does quake 3 take advantage of multiple processors? I think it does, but the way it's programmed only results in a small performance gain.

csubear
May 26, 2005, 08:56 AM
Check This. (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,8,00.asp). A SINGLE 2.2 GHz Athlon FX-51 beat the pants off of a Dual 2.0 GHz. It's not recent, but the 2.0 GHz G5 is still being sold and that fx-51 has been replaced a couple of times. I'm sure that when the Dual-Core Athlon 64's hit the market this month that they will blow the G5 out of the water.


Microsoft word benchmark? uh...

Foniks Munkee
May 26, 2005, 08:58 AM
Yes, I believe Quake 3 was a multithreaded app - an odd one out since not many games are.

However speed increases would depend on what subsystems of the game are multithreaded and how it is implemented.

And that is why its a little unfair to claim a single cpu is faster than a dual cpu machine based on apps that aren't multithreaded or optimised to use dual CPU's. That second cpu is pretty much sitting idle if the app is single threaded..

cube
May 26, 2005, 09:15 AM
I read that Quake 3 is divided in an application thread and a drawing thread.

With OpenGL Performer you can have application process, multiple channels per pipe,
cull and draw processes per channel, intersection process, database paging process.

Of course, if it's drawing thread limited and you yould want to split in two channels with the same viewpoint but different viewports, you'll have some overhead.

Platform
May 26, 2005, 09:45 AM
http://www.gromacs.org/benchmarks/single.php

Please look at this if you want to see REAL results that REALLY test the cpu and the memory bandwidth.

And what was the reseault G5, Opteron and Xeon ;)

Edit: Also found [2] Shared-memory communication did not work on OS X 10.2, but probably does now. Scaling should be much better on G5 machines.

mischief
May 26, 2005, 11:19 AM
As I recall Windows "Longhorn" (Formerly: Palladium) will make customization much harder.

It's difficult to compare all these machines when there are such discrepencies in optomization and architecture.

Really I think the best evidence of architecture superiority is in new product developments. Game machines are the most demanding consumer hardware out there and what are the top machines using in their next generation? Multi-core PPC 970 variants on very similar busses to the G5 architecture used by Apple.

So what does that say for the future of Mac gaming? Do you think there'll be more porting of games to the Mac when the chip calls are more similar between the Gamestations and the Mac than they are between said gamestations and PC's? I do.

With AMD licensing IBM's PPC tech, M$ & Sony switching to PPC and Intel running out of options for overclocking their silicon where do you think things are headed?

Hands down fastest machines? Maybe not. Most survivable paltform? Very likely.

Mord
May 26, 2005, 01:39 PM
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=32620-1

i dont see any owning there i see each rig winning by a hairs breath (HD test is moot as the xeon had a RAID array) also the G5 is a fair bit cheaper, (i know it has more ram but the xeon had RAID)

mcsenerd
May 26, 2005, 03:28 PM
Well...I think it's pointless anyway...

Great...your PC finishes (insert task here) 8-10% faster than my mac...good for you...then you get to spend 20-40% more of your time worrying about virus cleansing, worm prevention, system patching, adware pollution, and spyware removal than I do...who comes out ahead again? It's all about the overall experience.

One thing I would say though (I still maintain that both systems have their place)...I don't build my own PCs to save money. In fact when people ask me to build them a PC I straight up tell them that they can buy a cheaper computer from HP or Dell than I'll build one for...because I won't buy cheap crappy components. I'm not about to buy some underpowered power supply, some second rate memory, some flaky hard drive, some locked down untweakable motherboard, etc...just to save a few bucks...I buy quality, speed, and dependability...I'd say I wouldn't be alone in that regard either. So these statements that Apple computers can't compete with self-builds on price...is total hogwash. They can't compete with crappily built PCs on price...but certainly they are quite competitive with a PC built with quality components.

Mord
May 26, 2005, 04:03 PM
One thing I would say though (I still maintain that both systems have their place)...I don't build my own PCs to save money. In fact when people ask me to build them a PC I straight up tell them that they can buy a cheaper computer from HP or Dell than I'll build one for...because I won't buy cheap crappy components. I'm not about to buy some underpowered power supply, some second rate memory, some flaky hard drive, some locked down untweakable motherboard, etc...just to save a few bucks...I buy quality, speed, and dependability.

you defiantly dont get that with dell or HP, psu's are not nearly so dodgy as they used to be there are many cheap quality brands about, and with motherboards you cant go wrong unless you buy an asrock board, which suck.

branded memory dose not cost that much more and everything has a lifetime warranty these days so if you do get cheap ram it will only cost you a little time getting an RMA.

though i agree with you apple is damn good but a self build is way superior in my eyes to brand name.

mcsenerd
May 26, 2005, 04:11 PM
Oh...I'm not saying that Dells or HPs are crap...I'm just saying...let's see...

I'm johnny-home-system-builder, and I order max 10-15 CPUs/HDs/Mobos/Etc. per year...versus I'm 4 Trillion Pound Monster Dell and I order more CPUs/HDs/Mobos/Etc. than the US mint has pressed money. I wonder who's gonna get the volume discounts? I'm thinking it's likely the latter. I'm just saying...it's been my experience over the years that building your own (Highend) PC does not save a boatload of money...maybe a little here and there...but it's no huge amount...

Mord
May 26, 2005, 04:48 PM
if your doing it for yourself you dont have to make profit, screw building pc's for other people.

hulugu
May 26, 2005, 05:10 PM
it takes me about 15 mins to assemble, and then an hour to install stuff.

the point is it's a minority that builds systems and it really dose not cost that much less when you buy all the software (which i and most people obviously dont).

You're forgetting shopping time, shipping, workspace costs (yep, they have a cost too), equipment costs (how much is a torx screw-driver, etc.) and the time it took you to learn how to build a computer in 15 minutes. Then what can you install in one hour, all your programs? Or maybe just the OS?
Take all the above costs and add that to the cost of a home-built computer.

cr2sh
May 26, 2005, 06:02 PM
I can't believe that this childish discussion persists.

If you seriously believe that the amount of time spent building your own pc, parts, installing OS, and software and troubleshooting... in a strictly monetary sense, equates to the $3200 that you have to spend to buy a top end mac... you're lying to yourself.

Home PC builders enjoy it. They don't do it because they're cheap bastards.. and so you can't bill that time. Even if you did it wouldn't equate to $2700 or whatever the difference is. They wouldn't build the machine if they didn't enjoy it!

There is a debate over which machine is superior, but we're all rational, intelligent folks. We disagree on which machine is faster.. and that's the reason for this thread, so don't try to push the conversation some other direction. If we can find a benchmark that both PC and Mac folk can agree is a fair.. toe to toe... a representation of pure computing power, then we can see who wins..

However, I really doubt that will happen. Because the Mac folk will come back with "Oh, well... that benchmark is more optimized for your chip." The AMD folk will say that about the Intel.. and then Intel will say that about everything.

I've dropped $4k on a powerbook... and I've built a amd 64. I've been at both ends... and I know, the AMD halls for what I have invested and it was fun to research, build, and tweak. That said, my mac is a hell of a lot prettier but it crawls in comparison.

justkeith
May 26, 2005, 06:19 PM
I don't think most people build PCs to save money. Most people build PCs because they are enthusiasts and enjoy the activity. That's why I do it. I like picking out each part, putting it together, tweaking it, etc. If I didn't enjoy the experience there is no way I would spend the time and effort to build a PC myself just to save a few bucks.


Ok --- I can understand the sense of achievement - I suppose

some people love to bake their own bread ...

but this would then negate the arguments about Macs being too expensive / exclusive wouldn't it??? --- I know that's not the original point of this thread... but I was questioning the 'economics' of self-build

and despite the uniquely ambidextrous wonders of some highly skilled technicians I still say it takes a darn site more time (& effort) than 15 mins - as some others here have concurred

maybe it's a bit like chinese cooking - all flash in the pan - but you still have to select / buy the ingredients, clean the kitchen, wash, chop, dice ... wash up after you ... ho, hum

& sure, some of us may be great chefs --- but most of us couldn't make a living out of it

& maybe if Honda Civics were the only option more people would build their own (can you imagine traffic / safety / environmental impact)--- but there's always BMW / VW / etc ...

ps ... sorry for rambling :o

Mord
May 26, 2005, 06:27 PM
You're forgetting shopping time, shipping, workspace costs (yep, they have a cost too), equipment costs (how much is a torx screw-driver, etc.) and the time it took you to learn how to build a computer in 15 minutes. Then what can you install in one hour, all your programs? Or maybe just the OS?
Take all the above costs and add that to the cost of a home-built computer.


to spec out and find the cheapest parts take me about an hour and frankly i enjoy it, with pc's you dont need torx screwdrivers, over the last four year i have spent roughly £30 on tools, and i have every T bit and a fair few i have never seen on anything, i have AC5 a giant tube of white paste, a non magnetic screw claw, a black stick (v. important when working on macs), a torq screwdriver and a fair few other things i forget about including my trusty soldering iron, i just installed the OS in one hour because i dont use my pc for any real work, just for a few apps i need that wont run in vpc like ICON ladder logic for my electronics coursework and MPlab, and of course a few games like operation flashpoint :P.

as i said to compare the price of a home brew is not fair because so few people do it and most consumers are not, i however am seeing as i make money from fixing macs and a few pc's i have the experience to build my pc which cost me all told £38 which was £30 for a nice looking case and £8 on an 80W peltier the rest were spare parts i had lyeing around and some parts from school (slot A motherboard, 550MHz cpu, 512MB ram and a 40GB HD)

feakbeak
May 26, 2005, 06:33 PM
Ok --- I can understand the sense of achievement - I suppose

some people love to bake their own bread ...

but this would then negate the arguments about Macs being too expensive / exclusive wouldn't it??? --- I know that's not the original point of this thread... but I was questioning the 'economics' of self-buildMost people who build systems aren't doing it to save money at all. The people who claim you can save money by building yourself may have a point. If you buy crappy components off newegg.com or something you can probably build a really cheap system, but the margins on budget PCs these days are so low already, what would you be saving, $20? That's not worth the trouble when you can buy from Dell and get it pre-built, pre-loaded with software and a warranty on the overall system.

There are a few companies that offer systems with quality components, like Alienware. In this case, building your own can save you a decent amount of money, but it is still not huge. If someone wants an Alienware machine or wants to build a high-end PC they are going to be spending $2000+ (USD) anyway, so I don't think those are the people complaining about high Mac prices. I think the ones that complain are the people who buy a $800 Dell system with a 3.0 GHz P4 and the Power Macs only have 2.7 GHz G5, so why spend $2200 more on a crappier system, right? You have to keep in mind that these people are equipped with Logic Teflon™.

justkeith
May 26, 2005, 06:40 PM
So, if we're including 2 week "build time" of pc's shouldn't we also include the 4 month "ship time" on a lot of new macs? How about the "Wait for anouncement time" which is REALLY popular in the Mac crowd... 4 months... 6 months.. a year of sitting around "I'm not ordering till we hit 3GHz" time?

I'd argue no. It's interesting to me and fun to research parts, its fun to build the system... it's fun to surf these boards, its fun to think about rumors. Its a wash...

Well, what I was saying was - if it took more than 2 *days* of my time in total this would be uneconomical - I'd rather pay & save my time/money

but to follow your argument:

I s'pose all those new super-pc components are always available in stock :rolleyes: & nobody's following the Athlon roadmap? 'holding out' for dual-core & dreaming of Cell? [or Tiger on x86?] No anticipation in the pc-builders world? other than longhorn announcements? :)

but I'm not knocking your enjoyment really --- it's just not particularly solid grounds for knocking other people's choices

TheMasin9
May 26, 2005, 06:52 PM
Didnt anyone learn anything from the Doom3 thread? For me as a consumer gaming benches is where its at. I really dont care how fast iphoto springs open or how fast a blur can be done. I want to know how fast UT2K4 can run with everything on or Doom3 with everything on. I notice a lot of benches showing Doom3 with shadows off,med detail etc, whats that about? Barefeats have some interesting numbers on the new iMac vs last years and it was doing about 3 more frames. G5 is overrated and blown up by Apple. If it was so fantastic they wouldnt had to resort to dropping 2 of them into a PowerMac. Dec 2003 Macworld & Macaddict had benches and the dual 2.0 was holding its own against a single FX-51 2.2 ghz in everything but gaming. In gaming the Macs took a whipping. Anyways those benches were not shown on their web site just in the Magazines.

the thing with many games ported to the mac is that the ports just plain suck, you have to compare games that were ported well, no just a half way job that was done with doom 3. A great game to compare is halo because the job of porting is done justice. i believe it is really hard to do an accurate comparison of macs and pcs, each one does what it does well and i think the actual comparison as far as speeds go is really a wasted conversation, i think we instead need to look at OS's and software and what each can do well vs always pitting them against each other. i am a switcher and mac fan to the end, but i do recognize that each type of machine has its strengths. stop the bickering lol,

justkeith
May 26, 2005, 07:09 PM
I can't believe that this childish discussion persists.

If you seriously believe that the amount of time spent building your own pc, parts, installing OS, and software and troubleshooting... in a strictly monetary sense, equates to the $3200 that you have to spend to buy a top end mac... you're lying to yourself.

Home PC builders enjoy it. They don't do it because they're cheap bastards.. and so you can't bill that time. Even if you did it wouldn't equate to $2700 or whatever the difference is. They wouldn't build the machine if they didn't enjoy it!

There is a debate over which machine is superior, but we're all rational, intelligent folks. We disagree on which machine is faster.. and that's the reason for this thread, so don't try to push the conversation some other direction. If we can find a benchmark that both PC and Mac folk can agree is a fair.. toe to toe... a representation of pure computing power, then we can see who wins..

However, I really doubt that will happen. Because the Mac folk will come back with "Oh, well... that benchmark is more optimized for your chip." The AMD folk will say that about the Intel.. and then Intel will say that about everything.

I've dropped $4k on a powerbook... and I've built a amd 64. I've been at both ends... and I know, the AMD halls for what I have invested and it was fun to research, build, and tweak. That said, my mac is a hell of a lot prettier but it crawls in comparison.


I missed this earlier one ...

Firstly, I don't recall that you started this thread so I don't see where you get to dictate which way the discussion is going to be 'pushed' ... there are plenty others who seem to think this is worthy of some debate - even you can't resist chipping in ...

You keep saying you're not in it for money but enjoyment - but it seems you 'enjoy' the 'fact' that you can 'save' $2700(?) by doing it all yourself --- but can you do it as well? all the benchmark tests in the world may be able to give some measure of various components --- but none would indicate that *you*, or anyone else can actually build a computer as good / fast / reliable as Apple can or HP for that matter

I may be wrong of course - maybe you're a real pro - you could have churned out a couple of pcs in the time you've spent on this thread

Finally, if you could build the AMD into the powerbook form & save me $2700 I'll have 2 please
:)

cr2sh
May 26, 2005, 09:02 PM
I can't seem to follow your point... you're all across the board... I'll try my best though, you seem confused:

Firstly, I don't recall that you started this thread so I don't see where you get to dictate which way the discussion is going to be 'pushed' ... there are plenty others who seem to think this is worthy of some debate - even you can't resist chipping in ...

This thread is about cold hard performance. The only reason anyone would complicate the issue by bringing in OS, or software, or price... is to confuse the issue. You seemed to have missed that one...


You keep saying you're not in it for money but enjoyment - but it seems you 'enjoy' the 'fact' that you can 'save' $2700(?) by doing it all yourself --- but can you do it as well? all the benchmark tests in the world may be able to give some measure of various components --- but none would indicate that *you*, or anyone else can actually build a computer as good / fast / reliable as Apple can or HP for that matter.

Again, you may be missing the point... the entire point of this thread. It's not about build quality... because that cannot be measured in some quantitative, non-arguable way. Whether I save money or not... not at issue here.

I may be wrong of course - maybe you're a real pro - you could have churned out a couple of pcs in the time you've spent on this thread. Finally, if you could build the AMD into the powerbook form & save me $2700 I'll have 2 please :)

In the context of this thread... my AMD is in powerbvook form. It benchmarks in the exact same way... but you're still missing that.

Edit: there are some losing mac stats on the last page.

freiheit
May 26, 2005, 10:19 PM
Furthermore, does it *really* matter if I can shave 5 seconds off a minute of work? Unless volume is paramount the answer is "no." Which bring me to my next point ...

That same sentiment can be directed toward the people who believe gaming benchmarks are all that matter. I always ask "Can you really tell the difference between 30fps and 105fps?" That's another reason I don't put much stock in benchmarks.

hulugu
May 26, 2005, 10:44 PM
I can't believe that this childish discussion persists.

If you seriously believe that the amount of time spent building your own pc, parts, installing OS, and software and troubleshooting... in a strictly monetary sense, equates to the $3200 that you have to spend to buy a top end mac... you're lying to yourself.

Home PC builders enjoy it. They don't do it because they're cheap bastards.. and so you can't bill that time. Even if you did it wouldn't equate to $2700 or whatever the difference is. They wouldn't build the machine if they didn't enjoy it!

My point was simply that there are more costs involved with any DIY project than are typically considered, not just the labor and the parts, but also tools, troubleshooting, etc. When I consider any DIY project, whether it be building my own AMD Linux box or working on my Jeep's brakes or replacing the piping under my sink I will consider how much the project will cost for me to do it versus hiring a professional or buying a brand-name system. That's not a childish point, but thanks for trying to belittle anyone who happens to think that only including parts and labor is the only way to quantify cost.
Obviously, someone who enjoys it shouldn't consider labor as a cost, but not everyone enjoys researching for the right parts, piling them together, and plugging them into a case. Not everyone enjoys cooking and I—using your impeccable logic—could say that anyone who eats at a resturaunt is lying to themselves if they think the food is any good because you can make better, healthier food for less at home.

Will_reed
May 27, 2005, 03:06 AM
dispite the performace Id actually rather play doom 3 on a mac simply because It supports widescreen resolutions. Its kindof annoying when they port a game to mac and forget to include this kind of support.
uprgading to os 10.4 seems too have given me a bit of a performance boost to my 17inch powerbook and Im sure it could get even beter with future updates.

Mord
May 27, 2005, 03:41 AM
can we get back OT?

as i said no game benchmarks and no price comparisons of home builds. :rolleyes:

and btw i can have benches done on a single and dual 1.8GHz G5 so if anyone with a 1.8GHz K8 wants to do benchmarks that would be great.

justkeith
May 27, 2005, 03:52 AM
I can't seem to follow your point... you're all across the board... I'll try my best though, you seem confused:



This thread is about cold hard performance. The only reason anyone would complicate the issue by bringing in OS, or software, or price... is to confuse the issue. You seemed to have missed that one...




Again, you may be missing the point... the entire point of this thread. It's not about build quality... because that cannot be measured in some quantitative, non-arguable way. Whether I save money or not... not at issue here.



In the context of this thread... my AMD is in powerbvook form. It benchmarks in the exact same way... but you're still missing that.

Edit: there are some losing mac stats on the last page.


Well it was kind of late when I posted last ...

But as for me being all "over the board"?

1 post positing the question of the economics of self-build (the issue of self-build had already been discussed in a couple of posts - which is why I reasoned that it would be quite fair to raise my question)

2 posts (now 3) responding to you ... and I see you've got a few others "all over (this) board"

Confused? Maybe it's the fact that some people want raise issues of economics in all of this --- when challenged they can throw all kinds of figures in the air - from clock speeds to relative pricing - and under further scrutiny, decide that they're not in it for the money but for the sense of fun & achievement.

*You* seem to have missed the point that you cannot dictate to me what this thread is about

Firstly, you didn't start it - so you don't get to set the parameters

Secondly, several others here, including yourself, have made comments regarding the 'factoring in' of software / OS / price - before & after my query about the cost of self-build.

& since I was 1 who raised 1 of those issues, perhaps I'm best placed to tell you what my reason was & not the other way around (get my point?)

anyways, the thread isn't about fetishm or masturbation either - but that doesn't stop you & others cooing about 'pleasure' & "satisfaction" ... it's not about games - but they've been mentioned... it's _definitely_ not about product announcements. is it?

Generally, the thread title should be enough guidelines for decent discussion. I have no doubt that my contributions are quite pertinent to the general Mac / PC debate - and as I've said, others raised the issues around self-builds before I did


Thirdly, I may not be able (or want) to build an AMD64 in a shoebox, I may only be a newbie here. But I can tell you, I'm pretty good at English & Psychology & I know what's being said here by whom. So if you think this is all down to my confusion, confusion and missing the point, I think you should lay off the solder and get out & learn to communicate & interact with other people


"In the context of this thread" you informed us that you "dropped $4k on a powerbook" - you should have bought a mini then shouldn't you? - and saved yourself a shedload

you didn't mention how much you actually saved by rolling your own but I bet it would've cost considerably more in powerbook form --- & I still wouldn't want to buy 1 from you

Benchmarks? I believe the thread was started by some discussing viable & valid benchmark for comparing systems - presumably on the basis that a lot (all?) of the existing benchmarks are not viable or valid... now you can state glibly that your powerbook & AMD are benchmarked the 'same'
:confused:

why didn't you just say that to the original poster at the beginning of the thread ???- and then back up your claims to all the other posters here, some of whom appear decidedly more knowledgeable about those things than me

the stats you posted --- i didn't go there --- already looked at several charts / opinions on this --- based on your posts here I didn't want to waste my time (if I'm going to believe them I might as well believe you - & I don't)

:p

justkeith
May 27, 2005, 04:08 AM
can we get back OT?

as i said no game benchmarks and no price comparisons of home builds. :rolleyes:

Ok, sorry Hector


I guess I must have missed one of those :o



.... arf a mo ....



note we are not bashing self builds, just saying it's unfair in a price comparison.

Hector, you introduced the price comparison issue - now we can't talk about it? :(

Mord
May 27, 2005, 04:39 AM
i said it's unfair and we should not consider it, the price difference is minute at the high end a dual 2.7GHz G5 generally comes out less than a dual xeon or opteron of the same speed.

justkeith
May 27, 2005, 07:47 AM
Well, I guess my original post was both concurring *and* contradicting you

I said if you factor in all the factors there would be less difference than might appear - i.e. less cost 'savings' in self-building

this seems to have been borne out by many of the self-builders here - yourself included (although you did say you built yours from salvage in 15 mins? :rolleyes: )

so if this accepted as the case - how does the comparison become unfair because of cost reasons? :confused: :confused:

cr2sh
May 27, 2005, 08:03 AM
Not sure how good these tests are, but, here's what i did.

I ran the JavaScript benchmarking test on both my PowerBook and my Parents PC with specifications as follows.

Both tests were run on the same 1.5 MBPS DSL connection, the Mac first, followed by the PC (not simulatenously).

Desktop PC:
-Pentium 4 @ 1.8 GHz
-512 MB of ddr 2100 ram
-Windows XP Pro
-FireFox 1.4
-Disabled virus scanner, spyware scanner

my PowerBook:
-G4 @ 1.0GHz
-1 GB of pc133 ram (damn bus speed!)
-MacOS X Tiger
-FireFox 1.4

Well, first i ran the test with Safari 2.0, and my PowerBook annihilated the PC (got around 11.5 seconds with Safari).

However, making it fair, i then did the test with both computers running the latest versions of FireFox.

The PC won, but by a hair. Check the screenshot for the results:
(Btw, i didn't realize Safari's JavaScript was this superior to FireFox's)
I did this same Test with Firefox in 6.93 sec

So this is the only head to head pefromance test that we have?

A g4 running best at 11.5 seconds and a amd64 trouncing it with 6.93 seconds? Anyone care to run this test on their g5?

Also, if someone wouldn't mind posting the bat file they generated... I'd love to play with it.

Mord
May 27, 2005, 08:14 AM
Well, I guess my original post was both concurring *and* contradicting you

I said if you factor in all the factors there would be less difference than might appear - i.e. less cost 'savings' in self-building

this seems to have been borne out by many of the self-builders here - yourself included (although you did say you built yours from salvage in 15 mins? :rolleyes: )

so if this accepted as the case - how does the comparison become unfair because of cost reasons? :confused: :confused:


because most people are not as good as me and others here at tech stuff and it's a minority that dose it.

Lacero
May 27, 2005, 08:19 AM
I really believe that the G5 is truly the speediest desktop processor chip among all those AMDs and Intels out there, without a doubt. For me as a consumer gaming benches is where its at. I dont worry how fast iTunes springs open or how fast a pointillize can be done. I'm a Mac user and I adore gaming, but not on my Mac. However, Halo 2 only runs well on nVidia hardware. Whereas, ATI totally dominates nVidia on nearly every other app on the PC.

feakbeak
May 27, 2005, 08:34 AM
because most people are not as good as me and others here at tech stuff and it's a minority that dose it.I don't follow your reasoning, because few people do build PCs, they should not be considered fair game in this comparision of pure computational power. By that logic we shouldn't consider Macs in the competition either as they only have 3-5% marketshare. We were really only going to be comparing the Power Macs anyway and that's a much smaller number of systems. Although AMD has a little more market it is still quite small compared to Intel. I guess Intel wins by default.

Yes, I'm taking my point to the extreme in an attempt at humor, but I honestly don't follow your logic.

Mord
May 27, 2005, 08:37 AM
I don't follow your reasoning, because few people do build PCs, they should not be considered fair game in this comparision of pure computational power. By that logic we shouldn't consider Macs in the competition either as they only have 3-5% marketshare. We were really only going to be comparing the Power Macs anyway and that's a much smaller number of systems. Although AMD has a little more market it is still quite small compared to Intel. I guess Intel wins by default.

Yes, I'm taking my point to the extreme in an attempt at humor, but I honestly don't follow your logic.


to build a pc you need a be able to, any idiot can buy a mac thats the difference it's not purely about the fact that they are a minority it's just a minority is able to do it

feakbeak
May 27, 2005, 09:03 AM
to build a pc you need a be able to, any idiot can buy a mac thats the difference it's not purely about the fact that they are a minority it's just a minority is able to do itMacs are typically more expensive than their PC counterparts - not everyone can afford to purchase a dual proc Power Mac, so they are unable to obtain that computer. I don't see the relevance. When you opened this thread you said you wanted to disprove that any benchmark results exist that show AMD/Intel besting the G5. If that is what you are after it has absolutely nothing to do with price, effort or ability - so why do you think self-builds shouldn't be allowed?

Mord
May 27, 2005, 09:09 AM
Macs are typically more expensive than their PC counterparts - not everyone can afford to purchase a dual proc Power Mac, so they are unable to obtain that computer. I don't see the relevance. When you opened this thread you said you wanted to disprove that any benchmark results exist that show AMD/Intel besting the G5. If that is what you are after it has absolutely nothing to do with price, effort or ability - so why do you think self-builds shouldn't be allowed?


it has absolutely everything to do with price, you may be able to get a 16 cpu dual core 2.2GHz opteron which is unarguably faster than any mac but the cpu's alone cost about $20k, benchmarks need doing between systems of similar price and compareing the price of self builds is not particularly fair as so few people are capable of doing it.

feakbeak
May 27, 2005, 09:17 AM
it has absolutely everything to do with price, you may be able to get a quad dual core 2.2GHz opteron which is unarguably faster than any mac but the cpu's alone cost about $20k, benchmarks need doing between systems of similar price and compareing the price of self builds is not particularly fair as so few people are capable of doing it.Well, I'm assuming we can be rational and realize that a quad-proc vs. a dual/single proc is an invalid comparison. Still, considering comparing single proc to single proc machines and dual proc to dual proc, what does it matter if you build it or buy it - all the posts in the thread agree that the price difference is negligible. Again, why exclude them? Hell, if you want, add a 10% price premium for the labor on self-builds. I doubt most people even save that much building their own. The truth is I think far more people build high-end PCs than purchase high-end PCs from the likes of Alienware, etc. People who want a high-performance system are often enthusiasts and would rather build their own. By excluding these machines I think you're significantly reducing the number of submissions you might get from high-end PC owners.

Mord
May 27, 2005, 09:36 AM
as i said benchmarks with self builds are fine, just if you want to compare the price do so from a retail company.

self builds are cheaper depending on how much software you need as retail pc's tend to come with a fair bit most of witch you dont need, speccing out components to build a pc equivalent to a dell 8400 it came to 409.99 with a nice case with good psu quality ram and a gigabyte motherboard, the dell 8400 costs £662 that leaves £262 to send on software.

WalterDirt
May 27, 2005, 10:23 AM
Wow, I must say a lot of people on here are complete fanatics. Seems like people are so caught up in the mac vs pc war they can't think straight.

I'm a long time PC guy, I build my own systems for two reasons:
1. I love thinkering with computer hardware (thus my first thread on here was about the little box the G5 has. Which I'm amazed at nobody knows what it is, die hard mac people I guess just don't care about the internals, they must be too busy on message boards fanatically justifying there expensive purchase.)

2. Building a performance rig. Only the stupid would attempt to DIY for the sake of cheap. Dell is cheap, emachines is cheap, you can't touch the margins, its simply not worth it. You build so you can get the best of each component into your system. My last rig, was a balance between performance and silence. You can't hear it unless you're ear is 1/2 inch from the case.

I'm sure I'll get flogged out of the water for the comments above. But I really don't give a *****. I'm happy with my four PC's, and I'm happy with my Dual 2.0Ghz G5, and my mini. I really enjoy the features OSX has to offer.

Also, to the original poster, why on earth would you come to a mac forum and request benchmarks from PC users? If you want the benchmarks go to a PC forum. Damn whackos.

Here's an idea, stop moaning and bitching and do something productive on whatever machine you choose.

Mord
May 27, 2005, 10:34 AM
what i'm asking for is evidence that the G5 is getting owned which allot of pc users who prowl these boards seem to think and i want evidence, personally i dont think there is much and the little there is suggests that the G5 is no where near getting owned, what pushed me to it is the intel thread filled with idiots that think apple should switch the x86 which is plain stupid, the purous of this thread is to give opportunity to the people complaining to prove that x86 is faster and obviously they cannot do that, so in my view the thread had been successful by the fact that they have been unsuccessful at proving the superiority of x86.

and with that i go to put this thread in my sig as a trophy so no one can argue with me that x86 is way ahead like some claim.

fpnc
May 27, 2005, 12:56 PM
The below link has a pretty nice comparison of both price and performance between Power Mac G5s and high-end x86s. Note that this was prepared by someone who certainly could not be called an Apple enthusiast, but I consider it to be a fair comparison. In terms of performance the 2.7GHz G5 Power Mac came in just above middle of the pack. It posted the second best results in the Photoshop tests (losing to a dual Opteron system that sold for about $1000 more than the Power Mac). In the Cinebench and After Effects tests the Power Macs did not do quite as well. Note, however, that the single-core Penitum 4 system (Velocity Micro 840EE) was overclocked to 4GHz.

However, if you look at the prices you will see that the G5s are actually on the low end of the scale (except in the case of the new dual-core Pentium Extreme, that is where Apple's real problem will be over the next year or so -- the new dual-core Pentiums and Athlons).

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/48409524/m/867008203731/r/895009013731#895009013731

Finally, as for your tag line about Cray. I believe that the story is the following ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymore_Cray ) :


When in 1986 Apple bought a Cray X-MP and announced that they would use it to design the next Apple Macintosh, Seymour Cray replied, "This very interesting because I am using an Apple Macintosh to design the Cray-2 supercomputer."
So, it was "design" of the Cray-2, not simulation of the Cray 3.

Mord
May 27, 2005, 01:15 PM
The below link has a pretty nice comparison of both price and performance between Power Mac G5s and high-end x86s. Note that this was prepared by someone who certainly could not be called a Mac enthusiasts, but I consider it to be a fair comparison. In terms of performance the 2.7GHz G5 Power Mac came in at (or just above) middle of the pack. It posted the second best results in the Photoshop tests (losing to a dual Opteron system that sold for about $1000 more than the Power Mac). In the Cinebench and After Effects tests the Power Macs did not do as well. However, if you look at the prices you will see that the G5s are actually on the low end of the tested systems (except in the case of the new dual-core Pentium Extreme, that is where Apple's real problem will be over the next year or so -- the new dual-core Pentiums and Athlons).

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/48409524/m/867008203731/r/895009013731#895009013731

Finally, as for your tag line about Cray. I believe that the story is the following ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymore_Cray ) :



So, it was "design" of the Cray-2, not simulation of the Cray 3.

i got my sig off an exhibition of a cray 1 in the london science museum which btw is a sixth of the speed of my G4 cube :P, meh it needs a change

anyway, those are some pretty interesting numbers, remember that the opteron has four cpu's on two dies and costs the earth and the velocity micro is an overclocked pc and would send your electricity bills through the roof with the cpu probably consuming about 200w and the vapochill keeping it sub zero, and as you can see with some quick calculations the dual 2.7GHz G5 gives pretty good bang per buck (there is a pricing error on the dual dual core opteron) i dont think apple dose have to worry about the extreme edition, for the cost of the dell you can get a dual 2.3 which will probably beat it in the benchmarks, apple has to worry if ibm dose not get the 970MP out by MWP, the real competition is the xeon and that wont go dual core for a while yet.

fpnc
May 27, 2005, 02:09 PM
...i dont think apple dose have to worry about the extreme edition, for the cost of the dell you can get a dual 2.3 which will probably beat it in the benchmarks, apple has to worry if ibm dose not get the 970MP out by MWP, the real competition is the xeon and that wont go dual core for a while yet.
The dual-core 3.2GHz Dell Gen 5s are frequently on sale for just under $2000 (U.S.), so on a price comparison they are often nearer to the 2GHz Power Mac. But I do agree that in some areas a dual 2.3GHz Power Mac would be a near equivalent in performance to the Dell Gen 5.

In any case, with the new dual-core Pentiums and Athlons I think that price is going to become a bigger problem for the Power Macs. The dual-core x86 systems do very well in areas where the dual-processor Power Macs use to have clear advantage on a price/performance basis. Frankly, Apple needs the dual-core 970MP as soon as possible or they need to consider reductions in their pricing (or maybe a combination of both, since even a single-processor, dual-core 970MP system will likely begin at fairly high prices with little performance benefit over the existing dual-processor G5s).

If Apple/IBM can deliver a dual-core 970MP at 2.5GHz before the end of summer then things should be okay for the Power Mac (but they also have to add PCI-Express for video). However, I think there is very little chance that we will see a 3GHz 970MP this year, so Apple is still going to have to watch their prices if they want to remain competitive with the dual-core x86 systems.

bit.shiftr
May 27, 2005, 03:36 PM
I use both PCs and Macs daily. I "greatly" prefer Mac's but do not consider anyone who has different taste and prefer's PC to be any less intelligent then I. After all, we have one thing in common...we both love computers. Why would I feel a need to change them? I can only explain my preference for Mac's and listen to their preference's for PC's. I can admit that there are things that PCs do better then Macs (Games) without feeling I've lost anything. With open minds, perhaps we can learn from each other. Both sides are pursueing a common interest, just using different tools.

I'd like to see the day when we get beyond labeling; "PC Users" or "Mac User". I don't feel the need to do the "mind is bigger" scene (leave that to Gates and Jobs)...but then I've been in this business a long time.

OK....I'm off my soap box now! :p

Mord
May 27, 2005, 04:03 PM
thats what i'm saying i just hate it when pc users seem to think that pc's are way way faster than macs.

mukansa monkey
May 28, 2005, 04:41 PM
Every time I read one of these threads they seem less and less relevant. So much that people use their machines for doesn't require the full power of today's processors. Much of what does, it often ends up back in that <10% difference range, which hardly ever matters to the user anyways. It's like people arguing US vs. Japanese car engines. They get all yakked about horsepower, but hardly ever consider issues like the overall power curve, transmission gearing and tire limitations. Let alone whether they want to drag race or do rough-surface rally racing.
So many factors come into play when looking at how well a computer performs. Sure Doom 3 runs better on Windows. Chances are that Final Cut Studio does faster transitions on high-definition DV streams than the equivalent Winderz software. As has been previously touched on, having a machine that's relatively quiet due to good thermal design may make the price/power ratio worse, but for many people is still a good thing. Oh, and Halo was originally written for the Mac until M$ subverted Bungie. ::shrugs:: As long as your machine still plays it, why care? In the same vein, if gaming is the standard, why don't we start comparing these PCs to consoles? I bet that my PS2 does polygon mapping better for less money than any PC or Mac. That's why I own both. It's just like the cars... what's better often depends on what sets of conditions you're starting with.
Incidentally, that's a good argument for excluding custom-built computers from benchmarking. We're not talking about testing chips here, we're talking about testing computers. If you assemble a computer from parts, it's now a unique creation. Regardless of how superior you can make it, you're not selling them by the hundreds of thousands. So saying your unique modified computer does certain things better than my off-the-shelf unit for the same cost is pretty meaningless. I can put my hands on a Honda Civic that'll beat most any production vehicle in most any test you can set up. That doesn't change the fact that most Civics are econoboxes. Just like most Dells. Well, except they *are* built better...

CmdrLaForge
Jun 2, 2005, 06:10 AM
shock horror most mac users dont game.
They don't ??? That is interesting.

Maybe I am the only one.

Mord
Jun 2, 2005, 06:14 AM
shock horror most is not all, 70% would cover most.

weg
Jun 2, 2005, 06:36 AM
Sounds a lot like Folding@Home, but you can't compair hte result of F@H of one platform with the other because of the optimized codes for windoos, unfortunately for the mac the code isn't completely optimized, but with every revision, they tweak it a bit.

That's a bad argument. If I buy a computer with a PowerPC, I'll have to use the compilers that are available. Therefore, if the compilers for x86 are better, then this is an advantage vor x86. Arguments like "the PPC would be faster if there were better compilers for it" are nonsense.

Mord
Jun 2, 2005, 07:02 AM
how well cross platform apps are optimized is an issue as most the apps i use are mac only and one cant to fair benchmarks between different apps, but one can with cross platform apps, if those few cross platform apps favor x86 thats not much of an issue as most apps you will use (safari, mail, iapps, keynote, FCP) are properly optimized.

jcgerm
Jun 2, 2005, 07:13 AM
how well cross platform apps are optimized is an issue as most the apps i use are mac only and one cant to fair benchmarks between different apps, but one can with cross platform apps, if those few cross platform apps favor x86 thats not much of an issue as most apps you will use (safari, mail, iapps, keynote, FCP) are properly optimized.

Even testing cross-platform apps won't give you results that are incredibly accurate. If you want to do a fair and balanced comparison of CPU's, the benchmarks should be run on a linux distro that runs on PPC and x86 like Debian or Gentoo. Otherwise you still have differences due to memory management, process scheduling, driver optimization, etc.

Even if the apps are cross-platform, it might mean that the Windows version is written in C++/MFC, while the Mac version is written in Objective-C/Cocoa. Platform independent optimization is definitely a big issue. If you want to compare the CPUs, the simplest test would be the most relevent in my opinion.

Mord
Jun 2, 2005, 07:33 AM
you know ppc linux is far far far less optimised than X86 linux.

no this is a test of the mac as a platform if one were to compare cpu grunt you would use the FP performence but in the real world is dose not mean jack all.

if one looks at this site http://www.top500.org/lists/plists.php?Y=2004&M=11

and compare the 2.2GHz G5 cluster to a 2.2GHz opteron cluster and work out the flop/cpu the g5 wins by a fair bit

2.2GHz opteron: 3.149Glop per cpu
2.2GHz 970: 5.76Gflop per cpu (thats with a bigger cluster and the bigger the cluster the slower per cpu added)
3.4GHz xeon: 4.282Gflop per cpu

Snowy_River
Jun 3, 2005, 04:23 PM
Well, just to offer a benchmark...

This is a little bit old (about a year ago), but it provides a comparison using a cross-platform application in a more-or-less real world computing environment.

VectorWorks benchmark comparison (http://www.architosh.com/features/2004/g5-interview/2004-interv-g5nem-1.phtml)

One thing to note, while this article shows some nice things about the G5, it really shows some of the weakness of the G4. This is one significant reason that I'm awaiting a G5 PowerBook.

feakbeak
Jun 3, 2005, 04:33 PM
This looks like an interesting and relevant article on AnandTech (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436) that compares the G5/PowerMac to x86 hardware and compares OS X to Linux. I haven't had time to read it yet, but I'm looking forward to reading it later on, once I'm out of work.

Someone else on MR started a new thread about this, but I thought it would be applicable to this discussion as well.