2.2, 2.4 GHz Athlon64 FX has arrived, also, first benchmarks for 3.2, 3.4 GHz P4EE

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by Cubeboy, Sep 23, 2003.

  1. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Location:
    Bridgewater NJ
    #1
  2. macrumors 65816

    tomf87

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2003
    #2
  3. macrumors 68000

    hvfsl

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    #3
    They basically show that the top of the range AMD FX642.4Ghz is basically the same speed as a 3.6Ghz P4 Xeon (or Extreme Edition as Intel now calls some of them).

    There have also been some spec benchmarks comparing the chips to the G5. They show the single AMD or P4 chip easily beating the G5. The link, http://www.go-l.com/desktops/machl38/features/index.htm
    And yes I know, the site is a copy of Apple's.
     
  4. macrumors 68000

    Falleron

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2001
    Location:
    UK
    #4
    Wow, look at those prices!! You could buy 2-3 Powermacs 2Ghz for one of those.
     
  5. macrumors member

    GUSTO

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Location:
    Scotland
    #5
    Well we got to see what the speed test results are against the G5, and the rumor of no G5 powerbooks til 2004 (end of) is no great :(

    Looks like AMD have a monster of a chip family.
     
  6. macrumors 68000

    Lancetx

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Texas
    #6
    Everything on that Liebermann site is bogus so I wouldn't believe those. I seriously doubt that's even a real company, the entire site looks like an elaborate hoax...
     
  7. macrumors 68000

    hvfsl

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    #7
    Does anyone know if there are any UT2003 benchmark results on the G5, I would like to compare them to the AMD 64 and P4 EE results.

    For me the UT2003 benchmark will be the deciding factor of which chip is fastest.
     
  8. Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #8
    There are a couple in the games area here.

    The prices look really high on these processors but early adopters usually pay big money to be first.
     
  9. macrumors 68000

    ZildjianKX

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    #9
    And Apple doesn't charge out the butt for G5 processors? I'm curious how much they pay IBM for them.
     
  10. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Location:
    LA la land...
    #10
    Just to reiterate - this site is FAKE.
     
  11. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Location:
    United States
  12. macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #12
    Uh...

    I think he meant http://www.go-l.com is fake, which it must be.

    He didn't say anything about the AMD chip being fake.
     
  13. Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #13
    You mean to compare what IBM charges for 64-bit processors against what AMD charges, not what Apple charges, since Apple is the integrator, not the manufacturer of the processors.

    The 1.8 GHz and dual 2.0 GHz machines have a lot of value, even if they seem expensive to you. This is even more apparent when you contrast them to the prior set of PowerMacs.

    Are cheap machines really the deal they seem to be?
     
  14. thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Location:
    Bridgewater NJ
    #14
    Games like UT2003 are poorly optimized for the G5, Barefeat's results has a Dual 2 GHz G5 pumping out roughly half the fps of a 3.0 GHz P4 in UT2003 Botmatch, Quake III results are much better although the 3.0 GHz P4 is still the winner. This should change when developers start putting some G5-specific optimisations into their code. I'm expecting the G5 with it's excellent fp performance and memory subsystems to be at least the equivalent of a 3 GHz P4 in any of these 3d games.
     

Share This Page