PDA

View Full Version : problems with the G5 benchmarks?


f-matic
Jun 24, 2003, 09:55 AM
apparently some mac watchdog somewhere has compiled a list of reasons why apple's new g5 benchmarks are skewed. it's interesting reading, and some of the points certainly seem valid (hyperthreading disabled on pentium 4???).

here's the slashdot link:
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/24/1232237&mode=thread&tid=107&tid=187

here's the argument itself:
http://www.haxial.com/spls-soapbox/apple-powermac-G5/

illumin8
Jun 24, 2003, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by f-matic
apparently some mac watchdog somewhere has compiled a list of reasons why apple's new g5 benchmarks are skewed. it's interesting reading, and some of the points certainly seem valid (hyperthreading disabled on pentium 4???).

here's the slashdot link:
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/24/1232237&mode=thread&tid=107&tid=187

here's the argument itself:
http://www.haxial.com/spls-soapbox/apple-powermac-G5/ After releasing these (faked) benchmarks and making those fraudulent claims about "The world's fastest personal computer", I think Steve ought to fire Apple marketing. They will never gain any credibility again.

Why couldn't they just say: This computer is twice as fast as the current PowerMacs? Or, why couldn't they just say: We're almost faster than the fastest P4s, and by the time we hit 3ghz., we will be faster?

Shame on you Apple. The problem is, the average Joe at CompUSA or the Apple store will simply believe their claims when they say "The fastest desktop computer in the world."

I did also notice that every single app used during the bake-off yesterday was optimized for Altivec. Did you notice that as well?

MacBoyX
Jun 24, 2003, 10:20 AM
You people slay me. Why can't anyone just ever be happy that we have a new kick ass system. Why does EVERYONE have to find SOMETHING to b*tch about!

The new G5 Rocks! Does anyone really belive that Apple wouldn't steer things their way? Intel, MS, Apple we all do that.

OF COURSE Apple would use AtliVec enabled apps. That's one of things that make Macs faster.

ALSO...there is NO WAY the guy who wrote that on slashdot is a Mac fan... he's a PC User... the whole "...I am a Mac user. I have been using Macs for years. I am writing this article on a PowerMac G4. I enjoy using Macs..." is a dead give away.


Shame on you Apple. The problem is, the average Joe at CompUSA or the Apple store will simply believe their claims when they say "The fastest desktop computer in the world."
...uhhhh this is bad? Ummm I don't think so! Good I hope they do buy them, increase market share baby!

MacBoyX

klozowski
Jun 24, 2003, 10:22 AM
It's funny you mentioned this, because when I saw Apple's claims I immediately went off to read the veritest document just to see for myself where they fudged the numbers. Even BEFORE I had read any of this hoopla, I automatically assumed Apple was lying (as always) and went to find out where. The fact that I immediately thought of debunking these claims for my own amusement should suggest how much credibility Apple has lost by using these kind of 'contests' in the past.

The fact of the matter is that Macs have been slower than comparable PCs for several years, and yet, Apple insists on periodically making marketing claims in the area where they are the WEAKEST. It's like someone selling hybrid electric cars trying to market them for their SPEED and POWER instead of their fuel efficiency.

In Apple's defense, ATI and nVidia do similar things, even going so far as to 'cheat' on benchmarks with special optimizations of their hardware to make things look better, however, even THEIR claims aren't as ludicrous as Apple's.

When all's said and done though, a G5 will look pretty damn slick sitting on your desk....

klozowski
Jun 24, 2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by MacBoyX

The new G5 Rocks! Does anyone really belive that Apple wouldn't steer things their way? Intel, MS, Apple we all do that.


This post actually reminds me of why Apple still uses those particular marketing tactics. I mistakenly thought they were designed to entice PC users to a Mac ('wow, I want the fastest computer'), but let's be realistic, there's not going to be a sizeable exodus from Windows PCs to Macs any time soon.

Apple is preaching to the converted, preaching to them to buy a new system. The 'Mac faithful' (those of you who aren't as religious users must forgive me for this generalization) will swallow anything Apple throws their way, and even after seeing such a claim debunked, they don't really care. 'WOW! This computer beats the pants off a Dual Xeon 3.06, my Winblows friends will be so jealous. I HAVE to have one!'.....

and later on: 'So, Apple was telling a little white lie? So what? The G5 still AWESOME!'

Never mind that when the users buys the 1.6GHz SINGLE processor system that he or she can likely afford, it will have a hard time keeping up with even a modern budget PC.....

When it comes right down to it, performance isn't really a particularly relevant factor in the purchase decisions of the average consumer.

yzedf
Jun 24, 2003, 11:12 AM
Nobody really knows that the G5/970 does in real life. Staged cook-offs are always going to play to the side of those doing the presentation (duh). Default install of everything, without any special optimizations, on similar hardware (if you can really compare 32bit to 64bit fairly), then we may know something.

I think it is kinda funny that a 64bit workstation (G5 isn't a desktop by current standards) barely eeks out over 32bit desktop (P4). :rolleyes:

hvfsl
Jun 24, 2003, 11:20 AM
Quake 3 on a 3Ghz P4 with Radeon 9700pro gets over 400fps, while the 2Ghz dual G5 gets just over 300fps. According to www.tomshardware.com the AMD 2700XP is actually 10fps faster than the P4. It looks like we are still behind Intel/AMD in terms of gaming speed.

I know that we do not need anything more than 60fps but Doom3 requires a lot of processing power and it looks like the best PC is 25% faster than the best Mac. At least this has gone down from the 60% it was before, but it is still not very good.

Although this may change soon since UT2003 is being optimised for 64bit machines, so I will hold off on my final judgement until I see 64bit UT2003 running on a Mac vs the PC.

Edit: The above is actually wrong. I have said this more than once in this thread, but here it goes again. I was wrong when I said the benchmarks for quake 3 are wrong and PCs are faster. I was comparing the wrong benchmarks and the dual 2Ghz G5 Mac with Radeon 9800pro is in FACT faster than the Dell 3Ghz P4 with HT, 800Mhz bus, Radeon 9800pro and Rambus 1066.

QCassidy352
Jun 24, 2003, 11:46 AM
IMO, there is no such thing as an objective test. Everyone has an agenda, whether it is to pump up one platform, or just to make liars out of others.

I don't know enough about these benchmark tests to tell the truth from the lies -- either from apple or from this debunker. Keep in mind that the specs he sites about the PCs are from internal tests by the manufacturers of those computers! Sure, apple has reason to tell you that a Dell is not as fast as it really may be, but do we trust Dell as the alternative source??

As far as I'm concerned, the G5 is a *huge* improvement over the G4, and regardless of what is technically the fastest personal computer in the world, the speed gap is effectively closed. We can sit here and argue about the specifics of this test or that test or how this guy or that guy manipulated the truth, but by any account, these computers (2 Ghz G5, 3 Ghz Xeon or Pentium) are in the same ballpark.

macmax
Jun 24, 2003, 12:14 PM
[QU
Apple is preaching to the converted, preaching to them to buy a new system. The 'Mac faithful' (those of you who aren't as religious users must forgive me for this generalization) will swallow anything Apple throws their way, and even after seeing such a claim debunked, they don't really care.

yes u r right , but to tell you the thruth, apple can throw a rock at me and i will be happy.

My dream death would be to catch a g5 tower that someone dropped from a 3rd or 5th floor in the head!!!

i will die happy with the apple g5 tattoed in my forehead.:D

macphoria
Jun 24, 2003, 12:25 PM
Stop complaining. After years and years of waiting, we finally have G5!

iJon
Jun 24, 2003, 12:46 PM
well it was interesting. but i know nothin gabout benchmarks so i have no idea how much this means, doesnt look too good though. but as for the dual 2ghz on the gaming part, apple has always lacked in games, and those fps are simply a result on s****y drivers and lack of upkeep from nvidia and ati. if ati, nvidia and the developers gave a damn about apple we would have better results. although i do believe nvidia drivers will get better because they just hired 5 developers strictly for mac drivers.

iJon

f-matic
Jun 24, 2003, 12:52 PM
don't get me wrong, i didn't post this link to 'rain on apple's parade.' i just found this information interesting, especially in relation to the previous nvidia/ati benchmark fudging scandal.

personally, i think the most relevant comparison at the moment (and one that apple isn't providing, i assume, to avoid discouraging sales of current G4 systems) is the G5 vs. G4 comparison, which i think could perhaps provide the most accurate idea of how fast these things are gonna stack up against, say, the DP 1.42 ghz...

klozowski
Jun 24, 2003, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by f-matic

personally, i think the most relevant comparison at the moment (and one that apple isn't providing, i assume, to avoid discouraging sales of current G4 systems) is the G5 vs. G4 comparison,

you know, it just might be the other way around....yikes!

Falleron
Jun 24, 2003, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by hvfsl
Quake 3 on a 3Ghz P4 with Radeon 9700pro gets over 400fps, while the 2Ghz dual G5 gets just over 300fps. According to www.tomshardware.com the AMD 2700XP is actually 10fps faster than the P4. It looks like we are still behind Intel/AMD in terms of gaming speed.

I know that we do not need anything more than 60fps but Doom3 requires a lot of processing power and it looks like the best PC is 25% faster than the best Mac. At least this has gone down from the 60% it was before, but it is still not very good.

Although this may change soon since UT2003 is being optimised for 64bit machines, so I will hold off on my final judgement until I see 64bit UT2003 running on a Mac vs the PC.
Well, that demo was using the 9600 + not the 9700 that you mentioned in the PC.

klozowski
Jun 24, 2003, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Falleron
Well, that demo was using the 9600 + not the 9700 that you mentioned in the PC.

and as has been shown on a number of occasions, the 9600 is actually slower than its predecessory the 9500, and the 9500 is slower still than its big brother the 9700, so whichever computer was using the 9600 is at a significant disadvantage to the computer using the 9700.

first-person shooter FPS performance is more closely related to the speed of the graphics subsystem than that of the CPU

Falleron
Jun 24, 2003, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by klozowski
and as has been shown on a number of occasions, the 9600 is actually slower than its predecessory the 9500, and the 9500 is slower still than its big brother the 9700, so whichever computer was using the 9600 is at a significant disadvantage to the computer using the 9700.

first-person shooter FPS performance is more closely related to the speed of the graphics subsystem than that of the CPU
Exactly, if you put the same graphics card in the Mac + the PC + I think it will be very close. Especially if the game uses the second processor.

MrJamie
Jun 24, 2003, 01:14 PM
The demo used by Apple is 02, I think, while all the others use 01. Not sure how much a difference that makes, but it could be significant.

I almost want to bring a quake 3 cd to an apple store when the machines are available, install, and play -- then do the same thing with a 3.2ghz dell at compusa ;)

then I can post honest, no BS benchmarks -- unless tom's hardware beats me to it first, but I don't think they cover macs.

etoiles
Jun 24, 2003, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Falleron
Well, that demo was using the 9600 + not the 9700 that you mentioned in the PC.

the quake demo actually used the 9800 card...:(

Falleron
Jun 24, 2003, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by etoiles
the quake demo actually used the 9800 card...:(
Ok then.

ffakr
Jun 24, 2003, 01:19 PM
hahahahaha...

How many of the people slammning Apple here were actually at WWDC?

I'm typing this from the Moscone center.

I can't believe the fud and crap i'm seeing all over this site.

* No L3 cache??? No Crap! IBM SAID THAT THE 970 WOULDN'T USE L3 LAST YEAR!!!! The G5 doesn't need it. The bus has as much bandwidth to the main memory as the old L3 cache had.

* Apple is lying about the specs... Um, YEA. Apple went out of their way to demonstrate that the specs were generated by an objective testing firm. Jobs ADMITTED that the single 2GHz 970 was SLOWER than the 3 GHz (800MHz bus) P4 in integer math (in SPEC)... and that it was slightly faster in Floating point. He then went on to demonstrate that the dual 2GHz was faster than a dual Xeon in all regards due to the enhanced, point to point architecture.
The specs that Apple demonstrated were completely in line with what IBM posted last year at the microprocessor forum.
If anything, both the 970 AND the P4 scores were under what I expected but that's likely due to the development gcc 3.3 compiler.

* Apple cheats because they use Altivec enhanced apps to demo.....
Well, I don't know how Altivec enhanced the Mathematica demo was... but the G5 certainly did wipe the floor with the dual Xeon (which cost $1000 more with less HD space).
The other demos were extremely valid. The Photoshop run off was done with a real production design piece. It was over 2x faster than the dual Xeon.
In the audio demo... they did use different applications, but the results and stats were AMAZING... 1000 simultaneous voices.... a dozen stereo channels with 100 digital affects per channel running at under 25% cpu utilization. For the live demo... the PC couldn't even continue playback while the Mac cruised through at 50% CPU utilization.
The thing I found interesting was that the spread of performance advantage over the dual Xeon ranged from a factor of 2.2x to 2.4x on all the tested applications. Coincidence?

* Quake runs faster on a PC... Who the crap cares if an old software engine runs at 300 of 400 frames per second? How fast does your monitor refresh? And APPLE DIDN'T ANNOUNCE THE 9700PRO ON THE G5 YET... JUST THE NVIDIA 5200 AND ATI 9600 PRO SO THE PC MENTIONED HAD A BETTER VIDEO CARD.
I just noticed that the 9800Pro is a BTO in the store.. which I figured would be the case, but SJ didn't mention it during the keynote. The only place that _anyone_ would have benched the G5s at would be the performance lab downstairs... I'll see what Apple's got loaded in them

* The entry level model will have trouble keeping up with a budget level PC....
Um... perhaps you didn't look at the design. The single 1.6 has an open cpu socket. Why don't you try putting a second P4 in your budget PC 6 months down the road?
And anyway.. the 1.6 is only 20% slower than a 2GHz cpu (which keeps up with a 3GHz P4 on a 800MHz bus). If all things scaled linearly.. you'd expect it to be as fast out of the box as a 2.4GHz P4 box or better...
That's not a shabby box (especially the 'C' version with the 800MHz bus). And your cheap PC won't have gigE, PCI-X,.. it probably won't have dual channel memory or 8x AGP if it's really a low end box...

Face it... the G5 rocks. The architecture rocks. Apple matched or overtook Intel today and while the P4s roadmap is slowing, Apple and IBM promised a 50% increase in clock in the next 12months... Intel just pushed out the 3.2GHz P4, but the will only get to 3.4GHz by the end of 2003. They are shooting for 3.6, maybe 3.8 GHz in 2004 (according to ArsTechnica). By the time the next significant revision of the p4 core is ready early next year, Apple will be prepping the 980s.

Don't forget that all of these test were performed on an early version of gcc 3.3 that is just be optimised for the 970 processor. They were also conducted on a developmental OS.
The performance you see on the G5 will only get better as time goes on.

It's a good time to be a mac user... well done Apple.

MrJamie
Jun 24, 2003, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by ffakr
How fast does your monitor refresh?

Good point. I wish PC gamers had half a brain sometimes ;)

QCassidy352
Jun 24, 2003, 01:27 PM
wow, *very* good point. How many people could really tell the difference? 300 fps is so fast anyway...

LimeLite
Jun 24, 2003, 01:29 PM
He says he's a Mac user, right? And that he's writing the article from a Mac? I'd like to point out something that maybe most of you didn't notice. I could be way arong here, but I've noticed that there are certain fonts that are rendered way better on macs than on PCs. This first picture that I'm posting is from the article:

LimeLite
Jun 24, 2003, 01:40 PM
And here's a screen shot of the same page, different spec showing, but that doesn't matter, taken from a *real* PowerMac G4:

Kid Red
Jun 24, 2003, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by LimeLite
He says he's a Mac user, right? And that he's writing the article from a Mac? I'd like to point out something that maybe most of you didn't notice. I could be way arong here, but I've noticed that there are certain fonts that are rendered way better on macs than on PCs. This first picture that I'm posting is from the article:

Ahaha, good point, Maybe he downloaded it on his pc and then uploaded it to his server. Then wrote the article at home on his favorite mac? LOL. I knew the G5 would get the hornets nest stirring.

tpjunkie
Jun 24, 2003, 01:53 PM
you know, you're right, i thought that screen shot looked a little off, and i couldn't figure out why

macmax
Jun 24, 2003, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Kid Red
Ahaha, good point, Maybe he downloaded it on his pc and then uploaded it to his server. Then wrote the article at home on his favorite mac? LOL. I knew the G5 would get the hornets nest stirring.

tha is what i meant when i said i did not believe the guy in the other thread.

GO Apple!!!!!!

As for my pleasant death i want to die as i said before, a g5 crashing into my head from the room upstairs and leaving me a most beautiful tattoo in the forehead, hehehhehehehhe

ibookin'
Jun 24, 2003, 01:57 PM
I noticed another, albiet small, piece of information in the PDF that he quoted.

The G5 had 1.5GB of RAM installed, whereas both Dells had 2GB.

Another thing: The Dells ran Red Hat Linux 9.0 with no X windowing system or window server running.

Kid Red
Jun 24, 2003, 01:59 PM
Also, where are all these PC whiner's remarks concerning Logic, Photoshop and mathmatica benchmarks? You know, real world apps.

etoiles
Jun 24, 2003, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by LimeLite
He says he's a Mac user, right? And that he's writing the article from a Mac? I'd like to point out something that maybe most of you didn't notice. I could be way arong here, but I've noticed that there are certain fonts that are rendered way better on macs than on PCs. This first picture that I'm posting is from the article:

could it be a screenshot under OS9 ? Don't know, it has been a while...

klozowski
Jun 24, 2003, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by Kid Red
Also, where are all these PC whiner's remarks concerning Logic, Photoshop and mathmatica benchmarks? You know, real world apps.

I suspect noone's whining about those tests because they can't be easily be debunked. They can't be debunked presumably because they weren't done by a benchmarking organization that as a matter of policy is tranparent about the how the tests are done as with the CPU2000 benchmarks.

I suspect they were done by Apple themselves, and why's Apple going to say, 'actually, we rigged this test to make the PCs look terrible'.

klozowski
Jun 24, 2003, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by MrJamie
Good point. I wish PC gamers had half a brain sometimes ;)

Originally posted by MrJamie
Good point. I wish PC gamers had half a brain sometimes ;)

It's not really that straightforward. Let's say your monitor refreshes at 100Hz and you want non-jerky motion throughout your game. It's no good for your game to refresh at 98 fps or 102 fps, then frames need to be dropped or stilled by the framebuffer in order to sync to the monitor, causing jerking (however imperceptible) in the game. You need to be keep the refresh rate at EXACTLY 100fps throughout, or an integer multiple thereof, (200, 300 fps).

'Well', you say, 'this still doesn't explain why any card would need to do 300fps, when we only need 100' Remember that 300fps recorded in a benchmark is an AVERAGE. This means that if you get a scene with 100 high-poly monsters running around chomping at you and one another, the action could slow down by a factor of 4 or 5, putting you at around 80 fps, causing jerking in the action again.

It's never made a big difference to me, but I'm not really a serious gamer, or a gamer at all really. They're definitely NOT imaginary issues.

illumin8
Jun 24, 2003, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by ffakr
hahahahaha...

How many of the people slammning Apple here were actually at WWDC?
Sorry, I didn't get a chance to go and drink whatever magic kool-aid Jobs is feeding you... :rolleyes:

Yes, the new G5s are great. As others have said already, I just wish they compared them to the current G4s so we would know how fast they really are. PCs to Macs is like Apples to Oranges...

I find it remarkable that Apple has only lowered the prices on their current 1.25 ghz. G4s by $300. Damn, those things hold their value, even when the G5 is 4 times faster (or whatever ridiculous amount it is).

I'll probably buy a G5, but I think I'll wait for rev. B when they're up to dual 2.5s or something.

klozowski
Jun 24, 2003, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by etoiles
could it be a screenshot under OS9 ? Don't know, it has been a while...

It's probable. I primarily use PCs and I can recognize the type that Matthew Carter designed for Microsoft (as well as 'Arial') from a mile away, and that's not it.

illumin8
Jun 24, 2003, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by LimeLite
He says he's a Mac user, right? And that he's writing the article from a Mac? I'd like to point out something that maybe most of you didn't notice. I could be way arong here, but I've noticed that there are certain fonts that are rendered way better on macs than on PCs. This first picture that I'm posting is from the article:
If you guys read the whole article (including the hate mail at the bottom of the article), you would see that someone bitched about this.

He says he turned anti-aliasing off before doing the screen captures because it kind of messes up the captured image. I can buy that. It's kind of funny when half of the responses on this message board sound just like the hate mail he received after posting his article.

klozowski
Jun 24, 2003, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by illumin8
It's kind of funny when half of the responses on this message board sound just like the hate mail he received after posting his article.

who do you think was sending him that hate mail? :D :D :D

Warrzie
Jun 24, 2003, 02:52 PM
Wow,way too many fanboys. You guys are such sheep..Apple is knowingly screwing you over with false stats and you don't care because "TEH G5 is the best EVAR!!!". Wake up guys, Apple has their hands so deep in your pockets you don't even know it.

klozowski
Jun 24, 2003, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Warrzie
Wow,way too many fanboys. You guys are such sheep..Apple is knowingly screwing you over with false stats and you don't care because "TEH G5 is the best EVAR!!!". Wake up guys, Apple has their hands so deep in your pockets you don't even know it.

Oh gee, there's nothing as effective as the STUPIDEST POST OF ALL TIME to change the minds of the Mac faithful

illumin8
Jun 24, 2003, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by tpjunkie
you know, you're right, i thought that screen shot looked a little off, and i couldn't figure out why
Here's the quote you want:

From the article
Hatemail:This guy is the same guy that wrote all the Haxil programs. He is a extremely large Mac bigot. (And an idiot too) That screenshot is from a windows machine (as you can tell by the style of Anti-Aliasing) http://www.haxial.com/spls-soapbox/ read any of them. He says Copy/Paste is easier than Drag & Drop (Look at the example he used) and he says the screen menu bar is the worst idea he's seen. PC weenie. One that can't make valid points either.
Response:Oh yes, the "And an idiot too" part will definitely convince adults to switch to Mac. Also, what you think is Windows-style anti-aliasing is actually NO anti-aliasing. That's right, anti-aliasing is DISABLED in that screenshot, I turned it off.

Warrzie
Jun 24, 2003, 02:56 PM
Interesting point Klow, too bad it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Apple warped their stats and that you would get more bang for your buck by buying a $1500 PC.

MrJamie
Jun 24, 2003, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by Warrzie
Interesting point Klow, too bad it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Apple warped their stats and that you would get more bang for your buck by buying a $1500 PC.

It seems like a lot of people at ArsTechnica (http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=48409524&m=2370972175&p=14) would disagree with you.

But then, who are they? Obviously just idiots too weak minded to resist the reality distortion.

Sheesh, please try to be realistic when you post.

Warrzie
Jun 24, 2003, 03:08 PM
Who is being unrealistic? These statistics are coming straight from their own test logs, and they show that Apple intentionally disabled certain variants that would allow a PC to out perform the G5. I'm not saying that this should effect whether you buy the G5, but rather that you should be more wary of Apple's honesty.

MrJamie
Jun 24, 2003, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by Warrzie
Who is being unrealistic? These statistics are coming straight from their own test logs, and they show that Apple intentionally disabled certain variants that would allow a PC to out perform the G5. I'm not saying that this should effect whether you buy the G5, but rather that you should be more wary of Apple's honesty.

Did you even read the arstechnica posts? Please, if you're going to be rude, refrain from posting.

klozowski
Jun 24, 2003, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Warrzie
but rather that you should be more wary of Apple's honesty.

How is this news though? Apple has been RENOWNED for twisting the truth on benchmarks for YEARS. The fact that they did it AGAIN is totally irrelevant.

Mac enthusiasts are happy, as well they should be, because they have workstations available to them that may be able to compete from the point of view of CPU performance with a PC for the first time in a few years. Apple might have made this announcement controversial with their claims, but hey, any publicity is good publicity.

It's unlikely that this new round of fibbing will change anyone's mind concerning their platform of choice, and frankly, who cares?

iJon
Jun 24, 2003, 03:34 PM
Here is what OS 9 looks like, ill try to get a windows pic in a minute.

iJon

edit: well since it was hard to tell i compared dollar signs, that was easy. not os 9 ie 5 for all i know. i didnt even mess with netscape, and i probably wont go check because i dont care. and its not win xp ie 6. maybe win 98 or something. But OS 9 and XP render fonts very similar on this page. I'm still guessing OS 9 because its too much trouble to take a selection scree on Windows when on the mac you can hit apple shift 4. dont think it matters though. who cares what he thinks. all i know if pc users arent so worried they wouldnt be goin out there way to nit pick at apple's AWESOME G5 specs at AWESOME prices.

iJon

jacka55
Jun 24, 2003, 03:43 PM
I already discredited the benchmarks when Steve said "industry standard benchmark," and if hadn't been used by Apple Marketing before, everything's an industry standard when Apple marketing starts using it, isn't it? The authors interpretation of the results are probably accurate. On the plus side, all of his info came from documentation provided from the source. What's wrong with that? At least they're open about it. It's a sharp contrast to the MS switch ad, and also a far cry from Englishtown (http://englishtown.msn.co.jp/error/browser.asp).

Anyway, this quote from the article is my favorite (Before you accuse me of rewriting Slashdot comments, I read the article before I read the comments on Slashdot to see if anyone mentioned this. Wow. That was too much info. Oh well.):

Both Apple and Dell are guilty of using misleading prices. For example, Apple gives the price of the low-end G5 as "$1999", and the high-end G5 as "$2999". In other words, they have subtracted $1 from a $3000 computer to make it seem cheaper, which is absolutely ridiculous. This demonstrates that both Apple and Dell are willing to mislead people when stating their prices.

I mean, we're all getting ripped off every day, unless you're shopping at the paramount of honesty: The garage sale. Everything's priced with $1, $5, $40 and 50(cent - I'm not on my mac right now) increments. No dishonesty there.

My second favorite section is the "hate mail" which appears to actually be comments from Slashdot. That's another story though.

etoiles
Jun 24, 2003, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Warrzie
Who is being unrealistic? These statistics are coming straight from their own test logs, and they show that Apple intentionally disabled certain variants that would allow a PC to out perform the G5. I'm not saying that this should effect whether you buy the G5, but rather that you should be more wary of Apple's honesty.

...and the Dell Spec numbers come straight from...wait for it...wait for it...Dell ! Tadaaaaa !

I am sure those tests are much more honest :rolleyes:

Kid Red
Jun 24, 2003, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by klozowski
I suspect noone's whining about those tests because they can't be easily be debunked. They can't be debunked presumably because they weren't done by a benchmarking organization that as a matter of policy is tranparent about the how the tests are done as with the CPU2000 benchmarks.

I suspect they were done by Apple themselves, and why's Apple going to say, 'actually, we rigged this test to make the PCs look terrible'.

These same anti-mac-pro-pc whiners can't grab a pc and run 100 filters on a 300mg file and then compare it to the G5 results?

I guess we'll have to wait for real tests once the machines ship. I just can't believe if Apple lied about the spec scores that no one has said "BS! My dual P4 does that photoshop test in only 2.3 seconds!!" Yet, alas, I've seen none of those replies...

Not forgetting to mention the dells has 2g RAM while the G5 had 1.5g Ram. The Dells also has some tweaks, no window server and some other features turned off that would run in the background using CPU. Yet the author said the Dell were out of the box? Whatever.

Cubeboy
Jun 24, 2003, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by ffakr
hahahahaha...

How many of the people slammning Apple here were actually at WWDC?

I'm typing this from the Moscone center.

I can't believe the fud and crap i'm seeing all over this site.

* No L3 cache??? No Crap! IBM SAID THAT THE 970 WOULDN'T USE L3 LAST YEAR!!!! The G5 doesn't need it. The bus has as much bandwidth to the main memory as the old L3 cache had.

* Apple is lying about the specs... Um, YEA. Apple went out of their way to demonstrate that the specs were generated by an objective testing firm. Jobs ADMITTED that the single 2GHz 970 was SLOWER than the 3 GHz (800MHz bus) P4 in integer math (in SPEC)... and that it was slightly faster in Floating point. He then went on to demonstrate that the dual 2GHz was faster than a dual Xeon in all regards due to the enhanced, point to point architecture.
The specs that Apple demonstrated were completely in line with what IBM posted last year at the microprocessor forum.
If anything, both the 970 AND the P4 scores were under what I expected but that's likely due to the development gcc 3.3 compiler.

* Apple cheats because they use Altivec enhanced apps to demo.....
Well, I don't know how Altivec enhanced the Mathematica demo was... but the G5 certainly did wipe the floor with the dual Xeon (which cost $1000 more with less HD space).
The other demos were extremely valid. The Photoshop run off was done with a real production design piece. It was over 2x faster than the dual Xeon.
In the audio demo... they did use different applications, but the results and stats were AMAZING... 1000 simultaneous voices.... a dozen stereo channels with 100 digital affects per channel running at under 25% cpu utilization. For the live demo... the PC couldn't even continue playback while the Mac cruised through at 50% CPU utilization.
The thing I found interesting was that the spread of performance advantage over the dual Xeon ranged from a factor of 2.2x to 2.4x on all the tested applications. Coincidence?

* Quake runs faster on a PC... Who the crap cares if an old software engine runs at 300 of 400 frames per second? How fast does your monitor refresh? And APPLE DIDN'T ANNOUNCE THE 9700PRO ON THE G5 YET... JUST THE NVIDIA 5200 AND ATI 9600 PRO SO THE PC MENTIONED HAD A BETTER VIDEO CARD.
I just noticed that the 9800Pro is a BTO in the store.. which I figured would be the case, but SJ didn't mention it during the keynote. The only place that _anyone_ would have benched the G5s at would be the performance lab downstairs... I'll see what Apple's got loaded in them

* The entry level model will have trouble keeping up with a budget level PC....
Um... perhaps you didn't look at the design. The single 1.6 has an open cpu socket. Why don't you try putting a second P4 in your budget PC 6 months down the road?
And anyway.. the 1.6 is only 20% slower than a 2GHz cpu (which keeps up with a 3GHz P4 on a 800MHz bus). If all things scaled linearly.. you'd expect it to be as fast out of the box as a 2.4GHz P4 box or better...
That's not a shabby box (especially the 'C' version with the 800MHz bus). And your cheap PC won't have gigE, PCI-X,.. it probably won't have dual channel memory or 8x AGP if it's really a low end box...

Face it... the G5 rocks. The architecture rocks. Apple matched or overtook Intel today and while the P4s roadmap is slowing, Apple and IBM promised a 50% increase in clock in the next 12months... Intel just pushed out the 3.2GHz P4, but the will only get to 3.4GHz by the end of 2003. They are shooting for 3.6, maybe 3.8 GHz in 2004 (according to ArsTechnica). By the time the next significant revision of the p4 core is ready early next year, Apple will be prepping the 980s.

Don't forget that all of these test were performed on an early version of gcc 3.3 that is just be optimised for the 970 processor. They were also conducted on a developmental OS.
The performance you see on the G5 will only get better as time goes on.

It's a good time to be a mac user... well done Apple.

The SPECmarks (except for the rate) are quite accurate, however, the Pentium 4 used in the comparison was the older 3.06 GHz model with 533 MHz FSB. Might I direct you to the link below where I posted some calculations for the newer Pentium 4s. Look at the posts on the middle of the page.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30303&perpage=25&pagenumber=14

patrick0brien
Jun 24, 2003, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Warrzie
Wow,way too many fanboys. You guys are such sheep..Apple is knowingly screwing you over with false stats and you don't care because "TEH G5 is the best EVAR!!!". Wake up guys, Apple has their hands so deep in your pockets you don't even know it.

-MrJamie, iJon

Hmmm. He's only three posts (at this point) and he's already rude.

There's something familiar about this guy's sentence structure from a certain flame/ban/flame/ban war from this weekend. Though we are not yet being called "idiots", "fools", and "suckers".

You don't suppose the only Apple product he has is an iPod do you?

hvfsl
Jun 24, 2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Falleron
Well, that demo was using the 9600 + not the 9700 that you mentioned in the PC.

No, the Mac numbers are from Apples website where it says they used the 9800pro.

hvfsl
Jun 24, 2003, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by MrJamie
The demo used by Apple is 02, I think, while all the others use 01. Not sure how much a difference that makes, but it could be significant.



Thanks I did not realise that, if true it would explain the difference and Macs could actually be faster than PCs as Apple says. (It says the 3Ghz P4 gets 200fps with the Dual G5 gets 300fps, they are using the same graphics cards and settings.)

MrJamie
Jun 24, 2003, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by hvfsl
Thanks I did not realise that, if true it would explain the difference and Macs could actually be faster than PCs as Apple says. (It says the 3Ghz P4 gets 200fps with the Dual G5 gets 300fps, they are using the same graphics cards and settings.)

Then again, it could be the 02 bench was the only bench the mac beat the PC in, or they could tweak to beat the PC in ;)

Who knows! Wait and see!

These machines are fast, don't let any PC user tell you otherwise -- it's only how fast we're not sure.

ColdZero
Jun 24, 2003, 05:38 PM
A 3Ghz P4 getting 275fps in Q3 is absolute BS. Benchmarks from Yesterday (http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1834&p=10) The 3.0 P4 is getting 394 fps the 3.2 is getting over 400fps. I'd love to know how Apple got the score of 275, how do you misplace 100+fps? Was there stuff running in the backround. People say "Who cares if it runs at 400fps, I can only see 30fps". The answer to that is, sure you can play Q3 with a computer that gives you 55fps and it will be fine, but when Doom3, Half Life 2 and other games come out, are you gonna want the extra horsepower that the 3.2 has or do you want that 55fps computer to play it on? Its about how long you can use this computer to play games, not that it can get 400 fps in Q3 today.

MrJamie
Jun 24, 2003, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by ColdZero
A 3Ghz P4 getting 275fps in Q3 is absolute BS. Benchmarks from Yesterday (http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1834&p=10) The 3.0 P4 is getting 394 fps the 3.2 is getting over 400fps. I'd love to know how Apple got the score of 275, how do you misplace 100+fps? Was there stuff running in the backround. People say "Who cares if it runs at 400fps, I can only see 30fps". The answer to that is, sure you can play Q3 with a computer that gives you 55fps and it will be fine, but when Doom3, Half Life 2 and other games come out, are you gonna want the extra horsepower that the 3.2 has or do you want that 55fps computer to play it on? Its about how long you can use this computer to play games, not that it can get 400 fps in Q3 today.

Again, please try to read all the posts in a thread before you post. I know, reading can be boring and difficult sometimes, but I have faith that you are capable.

That people don't do this in the first place seems to be significant of zealot-like behavior, ne?

zoetropeuk
Jun 24, 2003, 05:56 PM
Who cares if the benchmarks are pulled out of Steve's a@se, I don't. What I love about Apple is that the products are made with PASSION, they truely love what they do and it shows in the products they release.

Where are the videos on the Dell website showing their AWARD winning designer bragging about how cool his new enclosure is ?

Life is all about the EXPERIENCE. When I sit down to my Dual G4 867 2GB 420GB I can feel that somebody has given their lives at that particular point in time to design a product that I will love and enjoy using.

Yeah, OK it's only a computer but I spend 10-12 hours a day with it ! I only spend 5-6 with my girlfriend (HHHMMMM).

Dell, Microsoft, AMD or any other number of PC manufacturers couldn't give a flying f@ck about their products as long as the board members approve and the cash rolls in !!!!!!!!

How many PC owners fell the same way about their computers as we do. Just check out http://www.dellrumors.com or http://www.compaqrumors.com and you will see what I mean, OOPS no one really cares enough about them to bother setting up a site.

I will always remember days like yesterday as long as I live and to me that's what's important. I can feel that Steve and Jonathan and the gang have made a product that they truely believe in and represents a small part of themselves. It is just amazing that such a wonderful group of people have ended up giving us truely wonderful experiences.

Steve had a dream that started in his garage and today we have one of the most advanced pieces of technology imaginable. The world would be such a better place if more people were like the gang @ Apple. True they have to make a profit but anybody that thinks money is their main motivating factor has their head stuck up their own a@se.

MrJamie
Jun 24, 2003, 06:07 PM
My mistake: it is indeed demo 4 that was run.

I asked a friend with the following config to run demo 4, here's what he got:

P4 2.66 Radeon 9700 Pro
1 gig Dual channel ddr

Default Config
maxium quality x 1024 x 32bit

Results:
5.8 seconds
219.1fps
1260 frames

His computer isn't hyperthreaded, and has a 266MHz FSB (before any * pumping). The computer is 2 months old.

He's using 1.32, the latest release of quake 3.

This leads me to believe that the Apple benchmarks are correct, but I'm going to do more experimenting.

UPDATE! MORE TESTING:

Athlon XP Barton 2.1GHz ("that's like a 2.9 pentium ghz...it's a 2500 overclocked")
360MHz FSB
Radeon 9700 Pro
Ram: Corsaair dual 400mhz 2-2-2-6 timing running at 360MHz

Default Config
maxium quality x 1024 x 32bit

Results:
5.2 seconds
244fps
1260 frames

ZildjianKX
Jun 24, 2003, 06:14 PM
Apple's Quake III benchmarks are way messed up.

http://a1008.g.akamai.net/7/1008/51/a78dff83763cf4/www.apple.com/powermac/images/graphicsquakechart06232003.gif

I don't know what PC they were testing that thing on... they say 3.0 GHz, so I presume its the 800 MHz FSB model since the other model is 3.06 GHz... anyways, the 3.0 Ghz model runs faster, and the 3.06 GHz model with a Radeon 9800 Pro 128 MB runs Quake 3 at 1024x768x32 at HIGHEST quality (Apple didn't even specify this) at 338.8 FPS
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/videocards/article.php/3211_2106171__4

That barely beats the dual G5... and this is an old processor.

The new 3.2 GHz P4 reviews just came out.

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3261_2226901__5

Sad to say, FPS of just shy of 400 FPS in Quake 3. And you can buy that system today, and not in 2 months.

scem0
Jun 24, 2003, 06:19 PM
This is taken from another forum where I am talking to someone else:

1) that's ************. your wintel machine is only crashing so much because you probably have little to no idea what you're doing.
from your previous posts i'd say you're just another mac zealot.

2) Apple paid a group called Veritest to complete a set of testing on the G5 2 GHz and a pair of Dells. This report contains the results. How interesting, Apple wins. But look deeper and you'll find the reasons why.

http://www.specbench.org/osg/cpu200...ts/cpu2000.html

That page is SPEC's official site. You'll note the scores for the dual 3.0 GHz P4.... both FP and Int base scores breaking 1200 each, which is 50% higher than the G5's supposed scores. This cant be right you say, Apple's tests show that the dual 3.06 Xeons get a hair above 800 in FP, and about 880 in int base. Well, read the testing situation.

Apple, in all it's kind fairness, had the PC hobbled. First off, they fed it Red Hat Linux 9.0, as we all know, Red Hat is not a good example of Linux, and Linux is not the pinnacle of speed. Second off, they required the PC to compile everything with GCC 3. Now this is the clincher. Apple's GCC on OS X is her native compiler, Apple has optimized the everliving **** out of GCC, submitted patches to the group in charge of GCC to altivec optimize, and everything else to that effect. The x86 version of GCC is dog slow, both Borland and Intel Optimizing Compiler blow it out of the water. Last I checked, the compiler in MS VC++ was a better performer.

So, under these nice testing guidelines, where everything in the system is compiled with GCC3, the G5 is a faster processor. Nevermind that such a situation DOES NOT EXIST in the real world. And you'd be real lucky to find a Xeon 3.06 running Red Hat.

Grr, way to ruin even a good product release Apple. Instead of doing the good thing, and charging $1400 or so for the low end machine, because it uses almost the exact same mobo as the old G4, there's no real difference, they charge $1999. Of course, dont let people know that the G5 is a smalller core, and costs less to make than the G4 (those 2 MB of cache really add up).

3) Alright, taking the kid gloves off here.
--------------------

Note 1: Feelings on G5:
Plagurized a bit from another forum.

From a merely technical perspective, I'll start.

What do I think? Alright I'll start with the positive.

+ Apple is now competitive with 2.4 GHz P4 processors when running 32 bit operations
+ It's 64 bit, which helps a: with addressing large chunks of RAM or databases, and b: with doing monsterous integer operations, like those done in Mathmagica
+ Serial ATA, USB 2.0 "Hi-Speed" (marketing people suck), Firewire 800, 802.11g, front mounted ports.
+ Fast ass FSB, even in the Intel world.
+ The dual FSB implimentation allows for better memory bandwidth to each processor
+ 8 GB of RAM, in the same form of dual channel used on the Opteron (not really dual channel, more like double width, the old 2 chips = 1 bank)
+ At bare minimum, 64 bit/33 MHz PCI slots, at best 64 bit/133 MHz PCI-X slots.

Now, this is gonna hurt.
- Chip is not more competitive with Intel's upper speed chips at running 32 bit apps, meaning anything out today will NOT RUN BETTER on G5 without a recompile at the least, and a code cleanup at the worst.
- ****ing UGLY case. Not even Lian Li would make something that abominable. For the first time, I'd rather own a PC case than a Mac, by far.
- Removed things, only one optical bay and 2 3.5" internal bays (really, why apple? Everyone in the PC world has at least 2 5.25", 1 external 3.5", and 3 internal 3.5" bays, and the good cases have 4/2/4)
- Back to only 3 PCI slots. SCSI card + M-Audio Revolution leaves only one left for future expansion.
- ****ing expensive. You know, the 970 is a MUCH SMALLER chip, and costs less money to produce than the 7485s, not to mention doesnt have to have 2 MB of DDR SRAM cache to perform at a reasonable level. The 1.6 GHz model should be around the $1500 marker without monitor. Anything more is being unreasonable.
- Change in FSB types means that dual processors can no longer cache snoop on each other, which means that if some thread gets reassigned from one processor to another, there's gonna be a massive slowdown while the cache waits for the first load command from that thread, since it doesnt already have the memory in cache the way cache snooping allows. Better way to handle this would have been to have had a single 500 MHz DDR (1 GHz, it's important to note the distinction between a physical clock and a DDR transmission "clocK", because the CPU's speed is derived from the physical clock, not the DDR transmission clock) FSB that was 64 bits wide, since the memory subsystem as it is cant saturate that, shared between the two processors, so that they could still cache snoop.


Now most of my problem with this isnt the actual computer. It's Apple. Fradulent benchmarks used to portray their computer as faster than it is. Charging way more money than is fair both for the computer, and for the BTO options. Lying about being the first 64 bit desktop/workstation chip out there, Opteron is already out, and Athlon 64 will beat them to market, with a real launch in August while these machines dont ship until September. Oh and not comparing to any AMD stuff at all. More like pretending that AMD doesnt exist. I can promise you that an Athlon XP 2800 or so would have thrashed Apple in Apple's own paid benchmarking, because AMD's architecture is much simpler than the P4 architecture which depends on having long streams of execution, and as such, the Athlon paths in GCC are much much closer to a good compiler than the P4/Xeon paths.

--------------------

Note 2: Calculation of dBA:
Plagurized from Ars C&CF forum.
The Health and Safety Commission put together an Info sheet for understanding how sound works. I think it is very handy to know how dBs add up when you are trying to build a quite (quiter) system.

According to nohsc.gov, for every 6 dB difference between 2 fans, you add 1dB to the loudest fan's dB rating, and you get the sound level that the human ear perceives.

e.i.
Two 80mm each rated at MAX 32 db and 40 CFM will produce better results at than one 120mm fan rated at MAX 32 db and 60 CFM because with the two 80 mm fans you get 80 CFM for the same 32 dB level.

So when trying to quite down your system, don’t just assume that throwing one big fan (120 mm or 92 mm) in your case is the best solution. You need to consider the performance you can get out of multiple smaller quiter fans.

http://www.nohsc.gov.au/OHSInformat...e/NOISECONT.HTM

It's important to read that link at the bottom.

MrJamie
Jun 24, 2003, 06:29 PM
I'm not sure I agree. See ars forums for discussions about SPEC, barefeats.com for more discussions about SPEC, and my own testing with friends.

I think we're going to have to wait for someone to get their hands on the g5.

edit: hopefully it will be someone platform-neutral, or else things could get ugly ;)

pianojoe
Jun 24, 2003, 07:04 PM
I think that the claims made in the article deserve proper examination. It's unethical to swear at somebody just because he sees things differently. (This is, indeed, called discrimination.)

And, his way of reasoning is much more elaborated than what people said against him. Prove his facts wrong, if you can. Or admit that Apple marketing is just "marketing", and, by definition tends to go exactly as far as the competition's legal department will let them.

Note: I didn't start this article with "As far as I'm concerned I'm glad that I'll get a faster Power Mac soon. I'd never switch to a PC for whatever reason." because I firmly believe that I do not need to duck and cover against the MacRumors community.

Farside161
Jun 24, 2003, 07:51 PM
Some Notes on Scem0's Quote.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________
quote:

quote:
Apple, in all it's kind fairness, had the PC hobbled. First off, they fed it Red Hat Linux 9.0, as we all know, Red Hat is not a good example of Linux, and Linux is not the pinnacle of speed. Second off, they required the PC to compile everything with GCC 3. Now this is the clincher. Apple's GCC on OS X is her native compiler, Apple has optimized the everliving **** out of GCC, submitted patches to the group in charge of GCC to altivec optimize, and everything else to that effect. The x86 version of GCC is dog slow, both Borland and Intel Optimizing Compiler blow it out of the water. Last I checked, the compiler in MS VC++ was a better performer.

So, under these nice testing guidelines, where everything in the system is compiled with GCC3, the G5 is a faster processor. Nevermind that such a situation DOES NOT EXIST in the real world. And you'd be real lucky to find a Xeon 3.06 running Red Hat.

quote:

- ****ing expensive. You know, the 970 is a MUCH SMALLER chip, and costs less money to produce than the 7485s, not to mention doesnt have to have 2 MB of DDR SRAM cache to perform at a reasonable level. The 1.6 GHz model should be around the $1500 marker without monitor. Anything more is being unreasonable.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

A: GCC on Red Hat is not bad, apple most likely chose to use red hat (most popluar form of unix on x86) in their tests because mac osX also has a unix core.

B: red hat on a xeon is not hard to find. ( my school has about 200 red hat thin clients running off of 4 dual 2.8 Ghz xeon racks, and it is not slow)

C: a 1.6 Ghz with PCI-X, S-ATA, AGP 8X, and 4 GB max ram for $1999 is not expensive

ZildjianKX
Jun 24, 2003, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by pianojoe
It's unethical to swear at somebody just because he sees things differently. (This is, indeed, called discrimination.)

Please, use the correct terms if you're going to say something that bold.

Discrimination is when someone has a prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment.

I think you're confusing this with being a bigot.

ZildjianKX
Jun 24, 2003, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by Farside161
C: a 1.6 Ghz with PCI-X, S-ATA, AGP 8X, and 4 GB max ram for $1999 is not expensive

The specs on the $1999 model kind of suck, especially for the price.

1.6GHz PowerPC G5
800MHz frontside bus
512K L2 cache
256MB DDR333 128-bit SDRAM (2 x 128 DIMMs)
80GB Serial ATA
SuperDrive
Three PCI Slots
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR video memory
56K internal modem

Incredibly cheap videocard... poor amount of RAM (and in two DIMMs too). Not to mention a slower FSB than the higher models... no PCI-X slots either.

MrJamie
Jun 24, 2003, 08:15 PM
I still don't see how the macs are worse.

Apple posted to explain the benchmarks here (http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/24/2154256), and the overclockers/AMDTech articles are, for the most part, opinionated rubbish. They do make some good points that I agree with though.

edit: link fixed

beefcake
Jun 24, 2003, 08:40 PM
Maybe someday either Apple or Dell will invent a computer thats powerful enough to put things in perspective for everyone. I find it amusing that someone can bash the speed of a Ghz computer when all they seem to be doing with their's is arguing over the Internet.

ColdZero
Jun 24, 2003, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by MrJamie
I still don't see how the macs are worse.

Apple posted to explain the benchmarks here (http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/24/2154256), and the overclockers/AMDTech articles are, for the most part, opinionated rubbish. They do make some good points that I agree with though.

edit: link fixed

Really? Would you mind pointing out what is so opionionated with a Quake 3 benchmark that tells you the detailed specs of every system that it is running on? After reading an AnandTech article I could go out and recreate the benchmark on the exact system if I wanted to. Maybe Apple could learn something about benchmark details from those opionated rubbish tech overclockers. Who I might add have nothing to gain from baising a benchmark.

iJon
Jun 24, 2003, 09:35 PM
he said code cleanup is terrible so 64bit wont be that useful. if im not mistaken, i thought xcode takes care of that problem in a matter of minutes.

iJon

MrJamie
Jun 24, 2003, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by ColdZero
Really? Would you mind pointing out what is so opionionated with a Quake 3 benchmark that tells you the detailed specs of every system that it is running on? After reading an AnandTech article I could go out and recreate the benchmark on the exact system if I wanted to. Maybe Apple could learn something about benchmark details from those opionated rubbish tech overclockers. Who I might add have nothing to gain from baising a benchmark.

last time I checked, neither ColdZero, overclockers/AMDTech was Anandtech, or a quake 3 benchmark ;)

I'm saying the AMDTech and the overclockers articles were bull; I'm just confused about the sharkysextreme/anandtech ones, because I haven't been able to come close to replicating the results (without disabling sound)

QCassidy352
Jun 24, 2003, 10:22 PM
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/24/2154256

According to Apple, the PC was not hobbled, it was given an advantage. Now, it could be that apple is twisting the truth somehow regardless, but please read the article for yourself before you comment because many of the original criticisms of the benchmarks are clearly addressed here.

edit: I provided the wrong link before because I thought that a previous post had referenced what I wanted... but it wasn't the right link at all. Another user provided what I meant to post, so this post is just edited to make my link the same as below, and the one I originally intended. :o

ColdZero
Jun 24, 2003, 10:22 PM
You need to do a clean install of windows, nothing else besides drivers for the video card and sound. Also there are bios settings for memory timings and stuff that need to be set. Sound is also most likely disabled for these tests too. Q3 is a bandwidth intensive benchmark, thats shown by the increase in performance from a 800 FSB P4 and a 533 FSB P4 of equal speeds.

f-matic
Jun 24, 2003, 10:46 PM
ok people! time to stop freaking out! apparently apple VP of hardware greg joswiak spoke out this evening about the benchmark accusations, as reported on slashdot - basically saying that the suppoed 'handicapping' of the pentium machine actually produced better benchmark results for the pentium/xeon machines. worth a read before getting on to more important areas of contemplation - like celebrating the fact adrianne is still on track to becoming america's next top model!



the link:



http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/03/06/24/2154256.sh t ml?tid=126&tid=181



the interesting part:



He said Veritest used gcc for both platforms, instead of Intel's compiler, simply because the benchmarks measure two things at the same time: compiler, and hardware. To test the hardware alone, you mus t n o rmalize the compiler out of the equation -- using the same version and similar settings -- and, if anything, Joswiak said, gcc has been available on the Intel platform for a lot longer and is more optimized for Intel than for PowerPC.



He conceded that the Dell numbers would be higher with the Intel compiler, but that the Apple numbers could be higher with a different compiler too.



Joswiak added that in the Intel modifications for the tests, they chose the option that provided higher scores fo r the Intel machine, not lower. The scores were higher under Linux than under Windows, and in the rate test, the scores were higher with hyperthreading disabled than enabled. He also said they would be happy to do the tests on Wi ndows and with hy pert hrea ding enabled, if people wanted it, as it would only make the G5 look better.



In the G5 modifications, they were made because shipping systems will have those options available. For example, memory read bypass was turned on, for even though it is not on by default in the tested prototypes, it will be on by default for the shipping systems. Software-based prefetching was turned off and a high-performance malloc was used because those options will be available on the shipping systems



(Joswia k did not know whether this malloc, which is faster but less memory efficient, will be the default in the shipping systems).o

QCassidy352
Jun 24, 2003, 11:36 PM
doh! That was the link that I meant to put in my post above! Sorry! :o

This part is the best:

"He also said they would be happy to do the tests on Windows and with hyperthreading enabled, if people wanted it, as it would only make the G5 look better."

If that doesn't shut people up, then the hell with them I say. When you're bound and determined to argue with something, you'll find a way to do it no matter what.

andypress
Jun 24, 2003, 11:38 PM
So what if Apple computers have the best design. So what if they are the fastest. So what if the are the first 64 bit personal computers. So what if the G5 whoops everything else. If you haven't noted the sarcasm, your obviously a fool. These are the best in quality. I gurantee any of you that you couldn't find one 10 year old pc that starts up the first time after sitting in dust. Even when you get it working, it'll crash. I just aquired 6 6100's from a school that was closing. They havn't been used for years. They started up perfectly, and didnt crash once. My 1 yr old pc cant start up the first time, and crashes every hour. You get quality and durability with apple. Some POS e-machine for $900 will likely fail in a few years. An Emac wont. Even the 6100's look better than a new dell workstation. I can't wait to ditch my pc and buy a G5. What pc has independent climate zones? (for lack of better words) Every small detail is taken care of.

illumin8
Jun 24, 2003, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by scem0
This is taken from another forum where I am talking to someone else:
Finally, a voice of reason in a crowded room of zealots... Welcome. ;)

Independence
Jun 25, 2003, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by MrJamie
Originally posted by ffakr
How fast does your monitor refresh?
Good point. I wish PC gamers had half a brain sometimes ;)
my monitor refreshes at a rate of 70hz. i'm a PC user.

i don't appreciate being told i don't have half a brain based on what platform my computer is based on. to see if you have half a brain, why don't you tell me the refresh rate of your monitor?

G4scott
Jun 25, 2003, 01:04 AM
I just love this...

The thing is that benchmarks are going to be biased one way or another, no matter who does the testing.

I really do like what Apple's VP of engineering said... Apple should run the tests again, as he claimed.

The thing that I don't get, as how so many people claim to be experts on the G5, especially pee-cee users who don't even know jack about Macs, and try to debunk benchmark figures...

I don't know much about the G5, except that it's a 64bit processor, and from what I've seen, it kicks @$$.

Another thing that got me, was the guy posting about the 1.6 G5 having about the same mobo as the G4... I'm sorry, but I doubt a 64 bit processor would even start to work with a 32 bit mobo, much less a mobo designed for a completely different processor. At least I know that much about the G5...

I'll just reiterate what has been said before. We'll see who the true performer is when people get these machines in the real world. By the looks of it, intel has some catching up to do (about 3ghz worth of catching up, if you ask me... :D )

There's just one thing I'd like to say... Can we stop with this "My mac doesn't crash/My PC doesn't crash" crap? I'm sorry, but both OS's can crash... Depending on the quality of the memory, the apps you're running, and all that, you can have completely different experiences. If you're going to say my Mac never crashes, but my PC does, please, tell us what you do with them. I'm tired of these "My PC doesn't crash, and it's setup as a server", but they don't tell you that the server gets 1 hit a year, or something... Each system is designed for maximum crash-protection. If something crashes for some reason, and the whole world isn't experiencing it, it's because of a defect, or the software you're using, and not Apple's, Microsoft's, Dell's, or Intel's fault... (even though we all know why windoze sux so much :D ) So if you're going to make claims about how much or how little your computer crashes, tell us what you do with it, please...

QCassidy352
Jun 25, 2003, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by illumin8
Finally, a voice of reason in a crowded room of zealots... Welcome. ;)

um, there seem to be more people here who don't believe apple than people who do. and there has been a lot of reasonable discussion from both sides... but whatever. :rolleyes:

MrJamie
Jun 25, 2003, 01:18 AM
Yea scott, except that the Apple benchmarks are so hard to believe because of what Apple has done in the past.

On the same page they show the current G5 to be faster than the P4 in quake (powermac/graphics.html or whatever) they had had graphs where the g4 was faster, too -- and it wasn't.

Myself, I don't really care for any of Apple's tests -- I'll wait for 3rd party sources to show me how fast the machines really are ;)

Independence:
I was being sarcastic about PC gamers having half a brain, I'm sorry if I offended you. I just wanted to poke fun at the fact that many gamers (mac AND pc) go nuts over the difference between 350 and 380 fps in quake, where their monitor cannot display more than 65/70/85fps due to its refresh rate ;)

acj
Jun 25, 2003, 01:37 AM
A little late, but here's the screenshot on XP to clear up earlier confusions. I'm not quite sure people realize both OS's let you turn font smoothing on and off. XP's is a touch better, in some peoples minds. It will render the font size slightly different by default, hence lines start with different words. I think he was on an Apple.


Photoshop: I hate these damned photoshop tests. Photoshop has about 100 filters. which 45 did they use? Most people only use a few, and for me the filter performance is not the biggest issue.

Being a professional photographer, I want the fastest computer for running USM, gaussian blur, crop with rotate, open, save, and most importantly paint with a gigantic 2500 px soft brush in an adjustment layer on a modest 50MB file.

Right now, my PC (which I am on and hence got the screenshot) is fastest for that, and it happened to cost about $800.

If the G5 is even 10% faster, It's worth the $3500-$4000 (ram upgrade needed, Raid storage prefered)

pozytron
Jun 25, 2003, 03:28 AM
From the article:
It is obvious what happened. Apple paid Veritest to make a report that would make the G5 look impressive. This by itself isn't necessarily bad. What I dislike is Apple describing the report as "independent", when clearly it is not.
(My emphasis) I'd be interested in what veritest has to say about this low blow.

I don't trust that author because he does not bother to point out that Dell's benchmarks are probably flawed themselves. (He also clearly doesn't use a mac and lies about it, but that's beside the point).

Mac is Good


I would like to end on a positive note by saying that there are many great things about Macs. The price-to-speed ratio of Macs is not one of those great things, but just because it is poor on that particular point, that does not mean that everything about it is poor. Macs excel in other areas. Speed is not everything.

So, please do not take my article as a criticism of Macs. Rather, I am criticising misleading advertising and fanaticism. :rolleyes:

What other areas? Clearly the mac is an inferior product according to the rest of the article.

In conclusion: Perhaps benchmarks are flawed. I don't have enough information to make a stance... someone should perform their own tests with maximum optimizations on both machines. This article read more like a biased mac-bashing fest than unbiased facts.

JOHNGAETANO
Jun 25, 2003, 04:26 AM
If any of you people are really Mac users, then why worry about the PC?
The new G5 is one kick butt computer. Thats all we need to know, or care about.

groov'
Jun 25, 2003, 04:40 AM
Can't we stop arguin' which system has the best specs?

Independant objective testers, like independant objective newsjournalists or so, do not exist.

Fact is: all systems are very impressive and have their good and bad things.

Most important: Apple has the best OS, but is (too) expensive. Other systems are a lot cheaper, but lack ease of use and beauty.

If money doesn't matter, go buy a mac.

What you pay is what you get.

maradong
Jun 25, 2003, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by hvfsl
Quake 3 on a 3Ghz P4 with Radeon 9700pro gets over 400fps, while the 2Ghz dual G5 gets just over 300fps. According to www.tomshardware.com the AMD 2700XP is actually 10fps faster than the P4. It looks like we are still behind Intel/AMD in terms of gaming speed.

I know that we do not need anything more than 60fps but Doom3 requires a lot of processing power and it looks like the best PC is 25% faster than the best Mac. At least this has gone down from the 60% it was before, but it is still not very good.

Although this may change soon since UT2003 is being optimised for 64bit machines, so I will hold off on my final judgement until I see 64bit UT2003 running on a Mac vs the PC.

games have to have many mhz. that s all they work with fast cycling and fast task regeneration.
therefore 2000 mhz is < to 3000 mhz.

Mac Messenger
Jun 25, 2003, 06:42 AM
Originally posted by JOHNGAETANO
If any of you people are really Mac users, then why worry about the PC?
The new G5 is one kick butt computer. Thats all we need to know, or care about. I'm going to have to agree with John. When was the last time you pulled your mac up to a red light and had a PC revvvinggg on you to race? Mac people are mac people and PC people are people with a computer. What I mean by that is most of the mac user's share a passion for their system. It's not alway's my system is faster then yours. Mac people care about the entire package. Starting with a stable OS that they love and design that in 2nd to none. If your someone that cares about having the fastest system, then your not a mac addict. A Ford Mustang might be faster then a Mercedes. So why would you buy a Benz? Style my friend, it's all about style. ohhh yeah....it's also about 8 gigs of memory....( when does Lightwave 8 come out?)
:cool:

sgomez
Jun 25, 2003, 07:06 AM
I am an avid fan of Apple products, a user of many Apples since the mid-80's and a pro user with my PowerMac G4.
This has been the most entertaining thread I've read in a very long time. You guys should spend more time doing actual work (yeah I know, look who's talking) than babbling about specs no one cares about.

The point is:

- is the job going to be done?
- Is it going to be done in time?
- Is it going to be done correctly?

With an Apple computer the answer is YES. PERIOD.

Stop with the non-sense name calling (which I won't do). Who cares if there is only a 5% market share? Who cares about Intel's new P4's?

This is going to be my only post just because I couldn't take this anymore. Post after post, you guys and gals have contradicted yourselves, repeated yourselves and above all: Wasted time!! (ohh I repeated myself)..

I'll be buying a G5 regardless of the Specs, not because I buy into the hype, not because it looks good on my desk, not because my friends will think I'm cool or loaded... JUST BECAUSE IT GETS THE JOB DONE LIKE NO OTHER COMPUTER.

Ciao.

benixau
Jun 25, 2003, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by sgomez
... JUST BECAUSE IT GETS THE JOB DONE LIKE NO OTHER COMPUTER.


Finally - a mac user on this site. We said this when the G4 was the best - why should a "kickass" system change that?

this guy got it right. Useability and "to repeat" getting the job done first time round is more important than a few hundred Mhz. These speeds are for switchers really.

BTW - for pc users saying the apple cheated -> how come an AMD 2400+ kills a P43Ghz yet a P4 2.4 kill an AMD 2800+ depending on who you ask. Apple is marketing. So are they all. It is just that macs have a loyal fan base and pcs do not.

Catt
Jun 25, 2003, 08:26 AM
Its all very nice to argue about the speed of the new G5 compared to a P4 but the fact still remains that Apple's products have always been extortionately priced compared to PCs.
In terms of cost/performance I suspect that the G5s, as with all other Apple computers, will lag significantly behind P4s and Athlons - regardless of real world speeds.

It is this that Apple needs to sort out. If I could buy a top of the range G5 system for the same price as a top of the range P4 system then I would probably go for the G5 but the fact of the matter is that I can't do this. You can buy an extremely fast P4 or Athlon for £2000 including monitor, decent graphics card, speakers etc all in. A dual 2GHZ G5 cost £200 more than this and comes with absolutely nothing other than the system, no monitor, no speakers - only the keyboard and mouse.

ColdZero
Jun 25, 2003, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by benixau
BTW - for pc users saying the apple cheated -> how come an AMD 2400+ kills a P43Ghz yet a P4 2.4 kill an AMD 2800+ depending on who you ask. Apple is marketing. So are they all. It is just that macs have a loyal fan base and pcs do not.

Nobody says that an Athlon doesn't beat a P4 of higher clock, but there are truely objective tests that say that. I could care less about marketing or how fast one company says its proc is compared to another. What I care about is when a company says its done independent testing. Which to most people means fair, then it turns out that the benchmark settings were tilted in Apple's favor. I don't like being told that something is the truth from a company and then find out its a lie. Its the same reason I have an ATI card in my computer and not nVidia. I was going to reccommend a new lab where I work filled with dual 2.0 G5s, and maybe I still will, but this whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

mk_in_mke
Jun 25, 2003, 09:14 AM
Guys,

The Mac community is lucky... Lucky because we are using extraordinary tools and lucky because the company that we all love has always innovated, created, gone the extra mile to provide us with a great computing experience...

I have been SOOOO excited before the WWDC and I have not been disappointed... Did Steve Jobs push it a little? Yes... As usual
"Super!", "Cool", "Super Cool", "The world fastest...". But this is Steve Jobs, this is what he has been for years, this is what we like about him...

Now let's be serious ew minutes... All the buzz about the speed who cares? Who cares that a Xeon is faster or slower than a G5? We are not going to use it anyway!!! Leave the speed consideration to Wintel users... What counts?

This year has been EXTRORDINARY for us... What HW/SW company has provide their users so much in 6 months? NONE...

Instead of talking about the PC users and their funny machines, let's use this place to comment directions / give directions to Apple and may be one day.... Steve's stetement will be true!!!


Mac Users: you rock!!!


Michel


PS: Hey Steve, next time...

sgomez
Jun 25, 2003, 09:17 AM
Thank you.

whooleytoo
Jun 25, 2003, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by ColdZero
You need to do a clean install of windows, nothing else besides drivers for the video card and sound. Also there are bios settings for memory timings and stuff that need to be set. Sound is also most likely disabled for these tests too. Q3 is a bandwidth intensive benchmark, thats shown by the increase in performance from a 800 FSB P4 and a 533 FSB P4 of equal speeds.

Jaysus! Whatever happened to "real world tests" ?!? These benchmarks make Apple's seem almost honest and fortright... :)

Mike.

mk_in_mke
Jun 25, 2003, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by Catt
Its all very nice to argue about the speed of the new G5 compared to a P4 but the fact still remains that Apple's products have always been extortionately priced compared to PCs.
In terms of cost/performance I suspect that the G5s, as with all other Apple computers, will lag significantly behind P4s and Athlons - regardless of real world speeds.

It is this that Apple needs to sort out. If I could buy a top of the range G5 system for the same price as a top of the range P4 system then I would probably go for the G5 but the fact of the matter is that I can't do this. You can buy an extremely fast P4 or Athlon for £2000 including monitor, decent graphics card, speakers etc all in. A dual 2GHZ G5 cost £200 more than this and comes with absolutely nothing other than the system, no monitor, no speakers - only the keyboard and mouse.

Really... Who cares? With all due respect.....

You want to go from London to Manchester... You have the choice to drive any vehicle you want... Some people take their Rover and some take their Rolls... Both will go to Manchester... The only difference: the driving experience...

Now, take this back to computing: do me a favor and compare what the machines come loaded with, compare the OS's, compare the integration MAchine / Soft...

For me, your argument about the price, though very valid, makes no sense... Some people don't even think about their user experience and are willing to save 200, 300 for a 3 years investment... that's a choice, I respect it but... thanks, no please... I stick with the mac... What I got in 20+ years using Mac has been extraordinary.... I use Win2K in the office on a top of the line laptop... cannot compare!

Once again, I don't mean to be rude or not respectful... I simply think that saving a couple hundred up front is not a good calculation when it comes to this type of investment...


Regards,

Michel

Catt
Jun 25, 2003, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by mk_in_mke
Really... Who cares? With all due respect.....

You want to go from London to Manchester... You have the choice to drive any vehicle you want... Some people take their Rover and some take their Rolls... Both will go to Manchester... The only difference: the driving experience...

Now, take this back to computing: do me a favor and compare what the machines come loaded with, compare the OS's, compare the integration MAchine / Soft...

For me, your argument about the price, though very valid, makes no sense... Some people don't even think about their user experience and are willing to save 200, 300 for a 3 years investment... that's a choice, I respect it but... thanks, no please... I stick with the mac... What I got in 20+ years using Mac has been extraordinary.... I use Win2K in the office on a top of the line laptop... cannot compare!

Once again, I don't mean to be rude or not respectful... I simply think that saving a couple hundred up front is not a good calculation when it comes to this type of investment...


Regards,

Michel

You're not just saving a couple of hundred your're saving at least 500 hundred. After you've brought a monitor for a dual 2GhZ mac and a set of decent 5.1 speakers you're looking at over £3'000.
If Apple wants to increase its market share it will have to reduce the cost of its systems, simple as that.

My experience of Mac OS X is that it is difficult to use, I find windows far easier - granted I've had far more oppurtunity to use PCs but my family do own an iMac which I use from time to time. If I was going to buy a good looking computer I would most likely choose an Apple, but if I was looking for value for money and power I would go with a PC.

Anyway my original point is that it makes no diffference if the G5 is as fast as a 3 GHZ P4 if it costs 50% more.

mk_in_mke
Jun 25, 2003, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by Catt
You're not just saving a couple of hundred your're saving at least 500 hundred. After you've brought a monitor for a dual 2GhZ mac and a set of decent 5.1 speakers you're looking at over £3'000.
If Apple wants to increase its market share it will have to reduce the cost of its systems, simple as that.

My experience of Mac OS X is that it is difficult to use, I find windows far easier - granted I've had far more oppurtunity to use PCs but my family do own an iMac which I use from time to time. If I was going to buy a good looking computer I would most likely choose an Apple, but if I was looking for value for money and power I would go with a PC.

Anyway my original point is that it makes no diffference if the G5 is as fast as a 3 GHZ P4 if it costs 50% more.

You just made my point... We are talking about different things here... once again: user experience and computer usage... If Apple wanted to increase its market share, I would advice them not to lower their cost... I would suggest a deep brain wash of most PC users... "Macs are not compatible", "Macs is for Graphic" and all the crap we hear... Now: you are the only person, i repeat the only person in 20+ years, that says Mac OS is difficult to use... OSX? What are you doing that makes it dificult to use...?


Michel

Catt
Jun 25, 2003, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by mk_in_mke
You just made my point... We are talking about different things here... once again: user experience and computer usage... If Apple wanted to increase its market share, I would advice them not to lower their cost... I would suggest a deep brain wash of most PC users... "Macs are not compatible", "Macs is for Graphic" and all the crap we hear... Now: you are the only person, i repeat the only person in 20+ years, that says Mac OS is difficult to use... OSX? What are you doing that makes it dificult to use...?


Michel

I think I find Mac OS X harder to use than Windows because the default mouse only has one button - I may try to convince my parents to get a two button mouse. I admitt I've only been using it for about 6 weeks compared to six years on Windows.
Mac OS X is certainly more attractive than any Windows OS and it seems to be far more stable.
I use it for Photoshop elements, some word processing and web surfing; pretty much what I use my laptop for.

MrJamie
Jun 25, 2003, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by sgomez
You guys should spend more time doing actual work (yeah I know, look who's talking) than babbling about specs no one cares about.

Eh. Take your egocentric attitude somewhere else, or realize that your own carelessness isn't a represantation of the entire community at large, let alone the single mac community.

Finally - a mac user on this site.
So, to be a mac user, I have to be a blind, fanatical devotee who cares about nothing other than the fact that the G5 is faster than the G4? I'm not sure I agree with you here. Maybe the word you were looking for was "evangelist?" I'd suggest "zealot," but that's a bit more mean than I care to be :-)

MrJamie
Jun 25, 2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Catt
In terms of cost/performance I suspect that the G5s, as with all other Apple computers, will lag significantly behind P4s and Athlons - regardless of real world speeds.

Uh, heh. The way you wrote that, it appears that you're saying no matter how fast the performance of the Apple machines are, the cost/performance will always lag behind P4 and Athlons.

If the apple is 30 times as fast as the P4/Athlons and costs $1000 more, the cost/performance certainly would not be lagging be hind at all, would it.

If it was just a sementical error (i.e. you meant one thing but couldn't express it in your type) then you're off the hook :-)

QCassidy352
Jun 25, 2003, 01:03 PM
two things:

1) to all the people who keep posting just to tell the rest of us to stop arguing - why would you bother doing that? If you find the argument pointless, why add your own posts just to tell us we are being silly? Why not just ignore the discussion?

2) there are lots of threads and posts comparing prices between high end dells and G5s. Do a search on macrumors. You'll see that once all of the components are evened out, the two systems cost almost exactly the same. You don't have to take my word for it; just go to apple.com and dell.com and price them out for yourselves.

sgomez
Jun 25, 2003, 01:48 PM
MrJamie... Wow, touché..... Egocentrical uh? hehehehe

I'll just leave it at that, we're all smart enough to make our own conclusions after posts like yours.

-- As for my blindness in Apple Land? Well that's just foolish. I am no fanatic, I've used both platforms in the past at the same time but now prefer to use my macs for obvious reasons that I have posted earlier. For the rest, you've answered yourself in your little tantrum. I don't care if the P4 is 10 times faster than the G6 for God's sake. As you hopefully know, these are two different systems we're talking about and the one I wish to use is called a Powermac.

These are only a few of the factors why I chose my Macs:

- Stability
- OS X
- Graphic Design
- Pro Video/Film
- and kick ass look...

Did I mention the speed? NO!
Did I say P4 in the same breath as G4 or G5? NO!
Do I care if the G5 is faster than other APPLES? OF COURSE!

WHY?

Because I work with Apples and only Apples.
Again, this is a very easy thing to understand and does not need to be complicated.

Have fun flaming my post Jamie.

Rower_CPU
Jun 25, 2003, 01:54 PM
Let's not instigate a flamewar here folks.

Debate the topic, not each other. ;)

MrJamie
Jun 25, 2003, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by sgomez
MrJamie... Wow, touché..... Egocentrical uh? hehehehe

I tend to be rather forgiving when it comes to semantics. I'd appreciate if people would return the favor, but to me it seems that you'd rather begin some silly grammatical argument.

I still stand by my point, which you seem smart enough to have understood; your opinion is no more qualified in regard to what we're talking about than anyone other one person's.

I'll just leave it at that, we're all smart enough to make our own conclusions after posts like yours.
So, if my command of the english language isn't as good as yours, I must not be as bright? Tell me, how much Japanese do you know? How much French? How much Latin?

I try to be forgiving, but when people start edging towards ad hominem comments I'll be the first to admit I can lose my composure; over such a silly thing, too, as semantics!

-- As for my blindness in Apple Land? Well that's just foolish. I am no fanatic,
I never called you as much, but maybe my writing was too sloppy for you to understand what I meant; I'll try to keep it simple so I don't slip up, eh? You like Macs more than PCs.* This makes you bias. The end. Hell, I'm a mac user going on 14 years, and I tend to have a strong bias myself. I don't see how to be a 'true mac user' you have to accept everything Apple pushes your way at face value, though. <-- in reference to the tone of that other guy's post. Sorry for forgetting your name, other guy! :)

I understand you may-or-may-not feel the same way.

For the rest, you've answered yourself in your little tantrum. I don't care if the P4 is 10 times faster than the G6 for God's sake. As you hopefully know, these are two different systems we're talking about and the one I wish to use is called a Powermac.
Hey, alright, I'm sorry if anything I said offended you, but I honestly ment it in as neutral a way as possible. Reading this, I can only guess that my attempt to be neutral was fruitless -- probably my fault as much as anybody elses. If you want, you can try reading my message again in a more neutral tone.

I know, out of all people, that it can hurt our pride to be corrected -- that doesn't mean a correction is a "tantrum." :-)

These are only a few of the factors why I chose my Macs:

- Stability
- OS X
- Graphic Design
- Pro Video/Film
- and kick ass look...

- Stability
Me too.

-OS X
I love OSX; in recent years it has been the only thing keeping me from going to an x86 machine. It's a pretty big hook though ;) Now that we have awesome desktops, there's a bit more to anchor me.

- Kick Ass look
Eh. The laptops are superb, and I think the new G5 is really the first "different" / "innovative" / "new" machine we've seen from Apple in a while. From the first G4s to now, though, the kick ass look factor didn't apply to desktops, in my eyes at least.

Did I mention the speed? NO!
Did I say P4 in the same breath as G4 or G5? NO!
Do I care if the G5 is faster than other APPLES? OF COURSE!
Heh. I thought you, out of all "no one," would be the last to care about specs. After all, that is what you said.

Look, again, I don't mean for any personal attacks towards you. Just please try to not be closed minded. Realize that just because YOU don't care about the actual specs, there are tons of people that do... and you are not any more right than they are, or I am.

*but now prefer to use my macs for obvious reasons that I have posted earlier.

sgomez
Jun 25, 2003, 04:23 PM
LOVE IT... :) haha!

ffakr
Jun 25, 2003, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by illumin8
Sorry, I didn't get a chance to go and drink whatever magic kool-aid Jobs is feeding you... :rolleyes:

Yes, the new G5s are great. As others have said already, I just wish they compared them to the current G4s so we would know how fast they really are. PCs to Macs is like Apples to Oranges...

I find it remarkable that Apple has only lowered the prices on their current 1.25 ghz. G4s by $300. Damn, those things hold their value, even when the G5 is 4 times faster (or whatever ridiculous amount it is).

I'll probably buy a G5, but I think I'll wait for rev. B when they're up to dual 2.5s or something.
Sorry no Kool-aid here. I fully have the ability to call a spade a spade. I recommend PCs when they are the best solution. I personally own one modern PC and Zero Macs (though I prefer Macs and use them primarily at work).

My frustration simply came from two main sources. People are griping about irrelevent things (that were outlined 6 months ago) like the lack of L3 cache... and people were immediatly ready to slam apple, though now it seems people are begrudgingly beginning to acknowledge that they may not be lying.

Things we know today (verified outside the reality distortion field):
[list=1]
The quake benchmarks (which I didn't realize were on Apple's site at first) were performed on a demo that DOESN'T run at 400 frames/sec on a 3GHz PC. It was a more intensive demo and the PC figures look accurate.
Apple sped up the PC SPEC scores by turning off HyperThreading. SPEC is very serial and it actually runs slower with HT on.
Apple posted Linux SPEC scores for the Intel boxes because they were FASTER than the Windows scores.
The changes to the G5 in the test (the hokey-pokey with the registers) will be the standard configuration for the shipping machines so this was done to reflect the real, finished product not to artificially inflate the scores.
[/list=1]

As far as the comparison to the G4s. It may simply be that Apple knows it will never push the last of the G4s out of the channel if they put them head to head. I'd like to see a dual G4 against a dual G5 too.. but it would very much be against Apple's best interest to do so.

I will, however, try to get a few other benchmarks performed in the G5 lab before I leave. I'm actually waiting for some word from the researchers I support to see if there is anything specifically they'd like run on the test machines.
:cool: