what a load of whiny crap
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.