PDA

View Full Version : Athlon 64 vs G5 comparison


Cubeboy
Oct 14, 2003, 08:07 PM
Review can be found here (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,8,00.asp)

Now, a few things to note:

All those custom desktops and workstations (especially the Opteron based ones) are going to be much more expensive than the Dual G5 Powermac, with the possible exception of the Alienware.

Also (judging from the title) I'm not sure about the reliability of these guys (although they are quite popular), I would have preferred a comparison from Barefeats or Ace's but any review is better than none.

The G5 performed very well in photoshop and I suspect it will outperform Athlon64 based solutions in most other dve/3d rendering applications which is what I consider to be most important.

iJon
Oct 14, 2003, 08:44 PM
who cares about premeire, why dont they do it in final cut and then see who is faster (hopefully us). we also have to remember, we are pretty close and apple will be at 3ghz by summer time (suppose to). what is amd's roadmap for the next year, i would be curious to know.

iJon

yoda13
Oct 14, 2003, 09:01 PM
I am also curious if the results would be different if the tests were conducted after the release of Panther?

tace
Oct 14, 2003, 09:13 PM
I know one benchmark the Athlon 64 will win, number of times the OS has to be rebuilt and the box has to be rebooted. :D

Rezet
Oct 14, 2003, 10:03 PM
Man... So basically they let me know that i have the crapiest computer on the list (benchmarks wise)... I know i should be upset, but for some reason i dont feel so.
So far 1.8 performed quite nicely, and i dont have any problems with it.


BTW tace, you got apoint there... :)

markiv810
Oct 14, 2003, 10:33 PM
These PC magazines should shut the **** up and stay in their self created PC ****ing world. Do those b@stT@rds know that it's been a while since Adobe discontinued supporting Premier on macs. As for word I presume that Microsoft makes the best version of word for Apple, as Microsoft is such a noble company. Just because a certain app has same version for both Windows and Macs does not mean that they are equally optimized. Photoshop 8 testing would be a better choice as Photoshop 8 is more optimized for G5 and hence the G5 can show it's true power. It's about time when PC magazines accepted that the highest end Mac's are as fast as the highest end PC's out there Check out the Virginia Tech cluster the 2nd most powerful Super Computer delivering 17.6 Teraflops for a mere 5-6 million dollar. There is too too much propaganda on the PC side.

[mod. edit - Profanity]

CMillerERAU
Oct 14, 2003, 10:37 PM
tell us what you really think markiv810 :-D

ZildjianKX
Oct 15, 2003, 12:32 AM
I know this thread here is older, but its also talked about here:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41752

I personally think the 1.8 GHz G5 doesn't have a Radeon 9800 Pro in it like they claim...

500th post! Woot.

FuzzyBallz
Oct 15, 2003, 12:48 AM
LOL, only fools buy custom-built PC systems. If anyone wants to buy a pre-built personal computer, it should be an Apple system (Dual G5 2GHz = $3K).

A decked out AMD FX51 system costs around $ 2,483 (+Tax for Cali buyer) shipped from newegg.com .

AMD FX51 2.2G OEM = $758
Zalman CNPS7000 heatsink = $42
Corsair XMS 1GB (2x512) ECC TwinPack PC3200 = $317
Asus SK8N = $213
(2) Hitachi 160GB/8MB SATA HD = $338
Plextor PX-708A 8x DVD Writer = $235
ATI AIW 9800Pro 125MB OEM = $361
Chieftec Alu case = $73
Antec True550W PSU = $110

aphexist
Oct 15, 2003, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by tace
I know one benchmark the Athlon 64 will win, number of times the OS has to be rebuilt and the box has to be rebooted.

No, you don't know that. It hasn't been tested and that is pure assumption.

aphexist
Oct 15, 2003, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by markiv810
It's about time when PC magazines accepted that the highest end Mac's are as fast as the highest end PC's out there.

PCWorld doesn't stand for "Wintel Computers" World. This article wasn't bashing the G5 at all; rather it showed test results from a fixed number of independant tests. There is no reason to use a piece of software that has been optimized for an OS or processor just to make it appear to be better.

The need for better performance on applications and games is what pushes processor and OS upgrades. There is nothing to accept; Apple raised the bar and AMD raised theirs. Competition is good.

markiv810
Oct 15, 2003, 03:29 AM
Originally posted by aphexist
PCWorld doesn't stand for "Wintel Computers" World. This article wasn't bashing the G5 at all; rather it showed test results from a fixed number of independant tests. There is no reason to use a piece of software that has been optimized for an OS or processor just to make it appear to be better.

The need for better performance on applications and games is what pushes processor and OS upgrades. There is nothing to accept; Apple raised the bar and AMD raised theirs. Competition is good.

I think doing Office Test and Premiere test makes it a bit obvious to even me that the whole point of doing the comparison test by the PCWorld magazine, was to prove that no matter what AMD 's Athlon is far superior to Apple's G5. The industry favors PC's more, there is more propoganda for the PC. I am not saying either is better all I am saying is, both G5 and Athlon 64 are at the same level and it is almost impossibe to compare 2 different kinds of processors.

One more thing G5 is made by a very small and inexperienced Computer Company called IBM, which does not have adequate experience of making processors. Tell me how in the sane world can a single 2.2 Ghz Athlon 64 beat a dual 2.0 G5. Did you know that most of the applications that are used for benchmark comparisons are written for a pc. Most of the games suck on the mac as the developers are to shy to put in the effort and write a decent game.

Btw I have a Graduate degree in Computer Engineering and I know what I am talking about.

gello2424
Oct 15, 2003, 03:53 AM
I don't understand why people get so upset when Apple gets beat? Hell I have one of the new Dual G5's and you can imagine I would be pissed that it might not be the fastest computer! Who cares? We get Apples because they are great computers I really don't give a rats ass if it is the fastest though that would be nice to impress us computer geeks.

Now on the other hand I do care very much if I have the fastest PC that you can have! I am just happy that AMD finally can say HEY look we can kick some ass too!

The reason I care so much about my PC's being faster is because of the games other then that I could careless.

Oh Yeah? Why does everyone say Windows XP sucks? I know they have problems but I myself have never had that many problems? Yeah so what I have do a patch every now in then hell I even have it all set up where it does it for me. But nothing is perfect though it should be!

Don't get me wrong I will take OS X over Windows XP any day.

It just seems silly that the second that something "might" be better then our "god" like G5's people come out with the silly stuff like "well yeah Windows sucks"

Oh well I guess what I am saying might be dumb but over that last year that I have joined this board it seems people get a little upset when something "might" just be better then are dear Apple!

P.S. Where the hell are the rest of my G5's!! LOL :)

reflex
Oct 15, 2003, 04:05 AM
Originally posted by markiv810
These PC magazines should shut the **** up and stay in their self created PC ****ing world.

Yes, lets all stay in our own little worlds where nothing bad ever happens and we are always happy. <hint>sarcasm</hint>

yujini
Oct 15, 2003, 04:16 AM
Originally posted by iJon
what is amd's roadmap for the next year, i would be curious to know.

iJon


I'm not sure for AMD, but i know Intel claims that they'll reach 5ghz-7ghz by the end of next year.

They also said that they'll have their first 5ghz prototype chip by Q1 of 2004.

So i assume AMD will be similar.
(not by the clock speed but performance)

Cubeboy
Oct 15, 2003, 09:27 AM
Tell me how in the sane world can a single 2.2 Ghz Athlon 64 beat a dual 2.0 G5.

Btw I have a Graduate degree in Computer Engineering and I know what I am talking about.

Apparently you don't have any idea what your talking about since the only time dual processors are actually going to boost application performance is when you have programs with two or more threads. Otherwise, having dual processors will actually hurt performance (snoop response;lengthens every read request, resource contention issues etc).


One more thing G5 is made by a very small and inexperienced Computer Company called IBM, which does not have adequate experience of making processors. Did you know that most of the applications that are used for benchmark comparisons are written for a pc. Most of the games suck on the mac as the developers are to shy to put in the effort and write a decent game.

OF COURSE most of today's programs are written for the pc, they account for the vast majority of the market, Doh!
Does that mean that many of the benchmarks are not well optimised for the mac platform as well? no. Does that mean that any comparison is instantly branded as biased and unfair for using real-world programs even when they aren't optimised for the G5? no again. Isn't it funny how any comparison that doesn't show the G5 winning is instantly branded as biased and crap. I find it hilarious!


I think doing Office Test and Premiere test makes it a bit obvious to even me that the whole point of doing the comparison test by the PCWorld magazine, was to prove that no matter what AMD 's Athlon is far superior to Apple's G5. The industry favors PC's more, there is more propoganda for the PC. I am not saying either is better all I am saying is, both G5 and Athlon 64 are at the same level and it is almost impossibe to compare 2 different kinds of processors.

You say that there is more propaganda on the pc side than the mac side. I've never seen any pc fanboys flaunting their computers as the "world's first desktop computer", I've never seen any pc fanboys quoting company and vendor produced benchmarks. If anything, the mac side has more propaganda by far.

Now, personally, I don't like pc world, I prefer getting my numbers from enthusiast sites like Barefeats and Aces and from as many sources as possible. However, your arguments are without base, without structure or any support to speak of, the tests used by PC World are based on common real-world tasks (which is really whats important), and many of them have been optimised for the G5 platform. Arguing that they are propaganda based on the given information is useless and self-defeating.

BTW: Where did you get your graduate degree from anyways?

aphexist
Oct 15, 2003, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by markiv810
Btw I have a Graduate degree in Computer Engineering and I know what I am talking about.

Congratulations! I have a M.S. in computer science. So we might be equal in terms of knowledge of software design. I have a hard time believing that the developers have held off on creating optimized applications and games because they are "shy." The Mac developers have access to the same HLLs. Blame the compilers? That would make Apple look bad and that is the last thing you would want.

The numbers are there. They show that performance in real-world applications is higher for a custom-built AMD machine. Yes, in my opinion, Mac has a superior interface and greater usability. That is not what is being tested.

No excuses are necessary. Having just bought a dual G5, I was surprised to see that it didn't dominate the Photoshop benchmark, since that app is the flagship of what Macs do very well (it's not optimized, boo hoo). C'est la vie...the bar is raised.

ColdZero
Oct 15, 2003, 10:35 AM
So Apple does some benchmarks showing that the G5 is faster and of course because the G5 won, they were ok.

Somebody now does benchmarks with a new processor that beats the G5 and that makes these crappy benchmarks.

I see the logic in this :rolleyes:

If you ask me, they actually went out of their way to make the benchmarks fair. All of computers were how you could buy them from the vendor. This ment that the PCs could have RAID, faster video cards and such. Instead, they removed some of those in some systems to make a more direct comparison to the G5.

Would Apple have ever taken a processor out if it was comparing a dual g5 to a single p4? I doubt it.

Either way it comes down to what you use and what you like. I like both platforms and both OSs, they have their strengths and weaknesses. I was going to buy a dual g5 to replace this dual 1ghz G4 I'm working on now, but I guess I'll be looking into an Athlon-64 now as well.

Cubeboy
Oct 15, 2003, 12:34 PM
I've just noticed something in the how we test section below the chart:

"In Adobe Premiere we timed the rendering of our workspace and timed the export of a 959-frame movie at 720 by 480 resolution and 30 frames per second into the QuickTime format. In Adobe Photoshop we timed the operation of ten filters on a 50MB image file and a 150MB file. In Microsoft Word we timed a search-and-replace of one word in a 1437-page document, and the execution of the auto summarize function on a 210-page document. We ran Quake III version 1.32's included "timedemo four" using high quality settings at two resolutions, and recorded the average frame rate. All machines were tested with 1GB of RAM and the ATI Radeon 9800 Pro graphics card; the Mac version of the graphics card has a maximum of 128MB of RAM, while the high end for PCs is 256MB. Most of the PCs used dual, RAID-striped hard drives; the Apple systems did not. We retested the Alienware Aurora with the 128MB Radeon 9800 Pro card and without RAID for more-direct comparison with the G5 systems. Tests on PCs performed by the PC World Test Center; tests on Apple systems performed by the Macworld Test Center. All rights reserved. Chart Notes: In Quake III, higher is better; elsewhere, lower is better. Best scores in bold."

Makosuke
Oct 15, 2003, 02:43 PM
It feels like people on both sides of this "argument" (though it should be a friendly debate, it doesn't feel that way) are sort of missing the point.

As far as the way these particular benchmarks are executed, there's nothing inherently wrong with the tests. They took three commonly used high-end programs and a game, ran them on factory standard high-end boxes, and published the results. The tests were basically fair for what they're testing.

That said, the tests fail at two things:

1) If you're wondering what the theoretical capabilities of the chips in the computers are, these tests are useless.

Since none of the programs are particularly well optimized for any of the really new processors, they don't tell you what either the AMD or IBM chips are really capable of when allowed to run all-out. And, only two of the four programs (Photoshop and Quake) use a codebase that is well optimized for the Mac at all; Premiere isn't well optimized for the Mac (it's now a dead product, in fact), and Word uses a completely different codebase on the two platforms.

Most of Apple's benchmarks were on processor-intensive number-crunching programs that were optimized at least for the G5 (like the NASA benchmarks published a while ago). Under those circumstances, I'd expect the G5 to be at the very least quite competitive with AMD and Intel chips, as this article shows it in the optimized-for-both-platforms Photoshop.

2) If you want to know how productive you will be with an Athlon or G5 based box, these tests are nearly useless.

If you use any of the four applications they tested, then these results will apply to you.

HOWEVER, most people doing video editing on the Mac don't use Premiere, because Final Cut Pro, by most accounts, demolishes it--I know which one I'd choose. They can't test that side-by-side since FCP doesn't even run on the PC (which might be reason enough to opt for the Mac), but a better speed comparison would be to perform a similar operation on Premiere on the PC and FCP on the Mac. Premiere might still win, but at least then you'd be making a comparison that users would be more likely to benefit from.

Photoshop is heavily optimized all around and a widely used app, so that's a much more fair comparison. The G5 did well there, I might add.

I'd expect Word to be vastly faster on the PC (it is MS, after all), and it is. [Of course, it's pretty darned fast on any platform, so I don't much care--not many of us do find-and-replace on a 1500 page document, and even then you can probably wait the extra 15 seconds for that, about five of which look like they came from the lack of a RAID array.]

If you're doing hardcore gaming, you'd be an idiot to buy a Mac for it, but the G5 actually did quite well in the Quake III test--it held its own, particularly against the other 128MB cards and the P4 system.

What I'm getting at with this whole rant is not that the benchmarks are unfair, or intentionally fudged, or meaningless. But it is a fairly narrow spectrum of tests, and in my mind only the Photoshop and Quake tests really show me anything I want to know about the G5 versus Athlon 64.

All things considered, I think the G5 looks pretty good.

ZildjianKX
Oct 15, 2003, 05:51 PM
No one else noticed the whacked difference between the 1.8 G5 and the 2.0 GHz G5?

Chad
Oct 15, 2003, 08:13 PM
OK here are my thoughts from a new Mac user who still will use windoze for some things
I am a photographer for a living ;)

I had macs since the 128k days but got off them some years ago ;) yes I went to the dark side ;)
I bought a new G5 2x2

I wanted to smile again;) have fun and have a fast puter I could have fixed up a new dual xeon which I almost did but I get tired of all the crashes and other things


anyway the test in question
funny on the 50 meg file there was 1 second dif ?? nothing really for speeed that is human error speed ??
also they dont say how long it takes to open the file and close it this is why I got the Mac as it will beat the PC in total workflow speed
(one other PC test I read said well if we included the open time the Mac would have won hands down) well DUH that is aprt of the workflow
they should do 20 files open run a set of actions and close and give us total time ;)

also the boxes in question I think should have 2 gigs of memory not just 1

for video I also wanted a Mac for final Cut Pro from what I have heard it blows away premier anyway

also all graphics cards should have had the same spec card the PC cards used a 256 meg card ???? in some of them advantage PC

Also the PCs used a striped Raid setup ??? this also gives advantage to the PC side

to me I am blown away at the G5 not for speed only but for build quality and feeling
I will have to take a few months to learn the interface better

I will still use the PC for somethings such as a Prgram for RAW called C1 and a few other things

so far I am a happy Mac owner now ;)

QCassidy352
Oct 15, 2003, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by Chad
OK here are my thoughts from a new Mac user who still will use windoze for some things
I am a photographer for a living ;)

I had macs since the 128k days but got off them some years ago ;) yes I went to the dark side ;)
I bought a new G5 2x2

I wanted to smile again;) have fun and have a fast puter I could have fixed up a new dual xeon which I almost did but I get tired of all the crashes and other things


anyway the test in question
funny on the 50 meg file there was 1 second dif ?? nothing really for speeed that is human error speed ??
also they dont say how long it takes to open the file and close it this is why I got the Mac as it will beat the PC in total workflow speed
(one other PC test I read said well if we included the open time the Mac would have won hands down) well DUH that is aprt of the workflow
they should do 20 files open run a set of actions and close and give us total time ;)

also the boxes in question I think should have 2 gigs of memory not just 1

for video I also wanted a Mac for final Cut Pro from what I have heard it blows away premier anyway

also all graphics cards should have had the same spec card the PC cards used a 256 meg card ???? in some of them advantage PC

Also the PCs used a striped Raid setup ??? this also gives advantage to the PC side

to me I am blown away at the G5 not for speed only but for build quality and feeling
I will have to take a few months to learn the interface better

I will still use the PC for somethings such as a Prgram for RAW called C1 and a few other things

so far I am a happy Mac owner now ;)

thank you chad... it's always so... *refreshing* to hear from people like you - people who actually use their computers for real-world work and have an opinion based on real-world buying decisions and experiences.

Jonathan Amend
Oct 15, 2003, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by markiv810

It's about time when PC magazines accepted that the highest end Mac's are as fast as the highest end PC's out there Check out the Virginia Tech cluster the 2nd most powerful Super Computer delivering 17.6 Teraflops for a mere 5-6 million dollar. There is too too much propaganda on the PC side.


Hate to break it to you, but that's only the theoretical speed of the cluster (rpeak). The rmax (actual speed) has yet to be tested by top500 and the #2 cluster right now has an rpeak of 20 tflops so expect the G5 cluster to come in at 3rd or 4th.

Originally posted by markiv810

One more thing G5 is made by a very small and inexperienced Computer Company called IBM, which does not have adequate experience of making processors. Tell me how in the sane world can a single 2.2 Ghz Athlon 64 beat a dual 2.0 G5. Did you know that most of the applications that are used for benchmark comparisons are written for a pc. Most of the games suck on the mac as the developers are to shy to put in the effort and write a decent game.

Btw I have a Graduate degree in Computer Engineering and I know what I am talking about.

Are you absolutely sure you know what you're talking about? Last time I checked, IBM:
1) is a huge corporation that is more than 50 years old
2) invented the "Microsoft" PC
3) Fabs the Athlon 64
4) Also designed and fabs the G5.

Btw I have a degree in passing the 10th grade.

Oh and Chad, read the whole article. They disabled the raid and put a 128MB Radeon to do the Athlon 64 vs. G5 benchmarks. None of the tests they did should have required more than half a gig of ram. As for the file open/close stuff, it's irrelevant and you're just assuming that Macs are faster at this. I've never before seen a benchmark where such trivial things were included.

Chad
Oct 15, 2003, 10:12 PM
thanks ;)

one thing I will say also, I replaced my monitor with a 20 cinema ;)
I am blown away by the quality now my other sony monitors are on the way out and cinemas in ;)

first thing I did was hook up my gretag profiler to the monitor and I thought hmmmmmm I can hardly notice a dif ???
these guys are almost perfect out of the box I really cant say I will keep using it
now if one has either a spyder or a gretag and does this on a CRT you will laugh at how much it can improve your monitor.

also eye strain is down from looking at stuff for 8 hours a day when I am tweaking images or reading etc...

Chad
Oct 15, 2003, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Jonathan Amend

Oh and Chad, read the whole article. They disabled the raid and put a 128MB Radeon to do the Athlon 64 vs. G5 benchmarks. None of the tests they did should have required more than half a gig of ram. As for the file open/close stuff, it's irrelevant and you're just assuming that Macs are faster at this. I've never before seen a benchmark where such trivial things were included.


true on the test but still not much dif of 1 second

OK I guess you dont use both platforms and use PS for a living ????

to say its irrelevant ?????
got to say then you never open or close files ????
they just magically apear ?????
after a shoot and I have to open some 500 files to check them out etc..
that wont matter the open close speed ????
that is over half of my time waiting for them to open and close

a few things many say it is a big dif in speed
even a PC mag I will try to find the link said if htey included that it would have won hands down !!!

also to say you only need half gig for most of those tests again not sure you use PS much or understand the memory the way they use it 1 gig is fine for 50-100 meg files as long as you dont have to many layers etc...

also they should have done say 100 10 meg files such as high res photos to see how it did ;)


if you use PS much you will understand about opening and closing files and making your living at it.

bottom line is so what if one is a second faster or slower as we switch what filters are used we can make them lean either way !!!

but to me the bottom line is overall everything
how much down time will I have etc....
to me it was time to switch
it is a tool to me that I use and I hope they stay up on things competion is good

OH I used to work as a trainer in technology for a little puter company called HP
also my college is in puters and I am 40 been working on puters since HS days

again no worries on who is on top I am saying I am happy running both platforms and I will switch again if I need to

to me this is like Photographers and the canon vs nikon thing !!!!

its still the perosn behind the lens

so I will use Mac for my imaging and my PC for other things
and one or two imaging programs and go back and forth using the best of both worlds

I must say I am impressed with the Mac build quality etc....

so far everything is smooth etc... driver issues etc... so I am still happy ;)

best of luck

Jonathan Amend
Oct 15, 2003, 11:10 PM
Oh, sorry then. I just thought Photoshop would need enough ram to hold the file. I still think the load times are irrelevent. If the Athlon 64 can process it faster, why should it load it slower? The load times would depend mostly on the speed of the hard-drive and maybe the CPU to render it. Anyways, I'm not much of a graphics artist so PSP works for me. The last time I ran Photoshop it insisted that I have a swap file, even though I had 1 GB of ram... I didn't know it actually needed that much =)

G5orbust
Oct 15, 2003, 11:34 PM
Strange to think that you all are arguing about how an Athlon 64 beat a dual 2 GHz G5.

This is exactly the same arguement the PC people put up when they saw the SPEC benchmarks Apple put out at the release of the G5.

Seriously, 1 or 2 seconds will not make the G5 look like a crippled sea turtle to a PC rocketboat. The applications used are cross platform, done for "fairness", but cross platform usually is not the way to go, as OS'es and sometimes hardware itself can be hindered by the code used by the program to execute commands.

I am not a comp sci degree holder, but I am a high school student learning computer science and the basic workings of how code works. Without the over-complication associated with too much software knowledge, I have seen through personal experience with coding on both PCs and Macs with a completely platform independent language (Java), that PCs just tend to run Java faster.It doesnt mean that my mac is slow or that the pc I used was top of the line, but it just means that in that one application of the computer I use regularly, I saw a difference.

Conclusion: Dont take these benchmarks and automatically claim foul play or faulty runnings. Just support the brand you wish to and see them through. Panther should allow the G5 to jump into hyper mode (I know panther sure made my quicksilver 933 do it).

The G5 is not Apple's last stand. In fact, it looks like it is just the beginning.

Chad
Oct 16, 2003, 03:55 AM
ahhhhhhhhh
frigin browse freaked out
I had writen a post
ahhhhh (this was on my PC)
hehehehe

anyway Jonathon hope this all reads with Aloha ;)

I think the thing is the puters can ping pong back and forth
in specs stats and bench marks
give me $4000 I can make a faster PC no prob
so I really believe there is more to it then just flat one bench speed



here is that other article I saw that talks about interface loading
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1274230,00.asp

loading wise I am not sure why they load faster but they tend to
where they really are faster is the loading of filters etc..
about 4x as fast
just loaded one I use a lot on a 50 meg file took 2 seconds on the G5 and 8 on the PC
if I do that with 4 filters per image I save around 24 seconds per image and a bit in the close or write back to disc of modified image and I spend 1 minute per image

if I do over 500 images that is a lot of time I save

to me that works out to about ten hours vs 13.5 hours

I can handle a ten hour site but 13.5 I have to break into two days ;)

once Adobe CS hits and Panther I think we will see new speeds ;)

to me its also like I can make a Honda or a Acura very fast and in some ways might be faster or more power than a Porsche
but the Porsche has a certain feel and build quality that cant be matched
get em on the track and usually the Porsche will win out
but not always
now race em for 24 hours and the build quality of the Porsche will usually come through and the fixed up car will need some tweaking.

good thing is I can run the Porsche all day like that where the other cars are not meant to go like that
and for that build quality and WOW factor I have to pay for it !!!


I have a friend that has a Acura with some 400 HP and tweaked to the hilt but I park it next to the Porsche and people still go WOW cool car and look at the Porsche ;)

bang for buck the Mac is not the way to go always
but its like buying a Porsche you can just buy it and its fast and stays fast and holds its value

hope this all is read in good fun ;)

maybe getting older I mellow out but have been punching keys for 25 years now since mainframe days ;)

now I Just want the puter to work like my fridge ;) open it up it works no hassles no tweaking drivers etc..

I still think that Macs are not for everybody and are only for a smaller % of people
but then again if everyone owned one chances are I would be saying that about the PC
heheheheeh

another Analogy Tiger Woods doesnt win every thing he enters but he is still the Man to beat and when he doesnt win people say OH he is realy sucking today his game is off etc..
come on he cant win everything every time

again good chatting with ya ;)

Chad
Oct 16, 2003, 04:14 AM
another good reason I am switching half way ;)
hehheheheheheehh ;)


http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/10/16/microsoft.security.ap/index.html

aethier
Oct 18, 2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Jonathan Amend
Hate to break it to you, but that's only the theoretical speed of the cluster (rpeak). The rmax (actual speed) has yet to be tested by top500 and the #2 cluster right now has an rpeak of 20 tflops so expect the G5 cluster to come in at 3rd or 4th.



Are you absolutely sure you know what you're talking about? Last time I checked, IBM:
1) is a huge corporation that is more than 50 years old
2) invented the "Microsoft" PC
3) Fabs the Athlon 64
4) Also designed and fabs the G5.

Btw I have a degree in passing the 10th grade.



hmm, last i checked IBM is over 100 years old. though it was not always called IBM. This just shows you that people on internet may not always be honest in what they are saying..

markiv810: are you sure your deploma says "computer science" on it? because making incredably flawed statements, about a company in the industry you have your degree in, raises suspision...

after all, out of IBM Intel, and AMD IBM has the highest budget for R&D, but hmm, how does that work, if they are just some small crappy company.

but what do i know, i too, only have my degree in passing grade 10...

aethier

*EDIT: lol, i just re-read your post, markiv810, according to you IBM is "small and inexperienced", so i guess the Power4+, a powerful server class chip, and all the other PowerPC chips they made for apple in the past, count as nothing... i guess the Power5 with 144 megs of cache is just a lie, becuase there is no way such a small company could design it. becuase you know everything afterall you have a "graduate" degree
:o