1. Your G5 Geekbench benchmark is rubbish too, as I have the same computer and only get ~3500, as do all submitted scores. If you can really get 4800, submit it to the Geekbench browser database.
2. My point is that you can absolutely tell a difference. I understand that people's thresholds for what they consider to be noticeable vary, but I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks they are the same (or actually, in another thread, you actually claim that the G5 is significantly faster than the FX-8350, which is an even bigger load of codswallop). Even my computer illiterate parents, who up to this point had been using a Pentium 4 can tell the difference. Again, that's not to say the G5 is unusable, I likened the Quad before to a C2D, but the difference is obvious. Bulldozer was a disaster, and while single threaded performance is still relatively poor, Piledriver is actually a very good CPU; it's just AMD's reputation right now is in the dumps (and few people need so many threads) so no one wants one. The only reason I got one is out of stubborn desire to continue having an AMD system and to support the little guy. Also, it came with a shiny box, but it's really a decent CPU.
3. Also, if you're comparing Mac Geekbench scores to Windows/Linux, that's not an good comparison (or even 32-bit to 64-bit will give you different scores). Given your lack of computer knowledge, I have my doubts you managed to actually Hackintosh your FX using the AMD patched ML kernel floating out there unless you can show me otherwise.