Apple themselves say G5 upto 117% Faster than Intel 3.6Ghz

Discussion in 'Buying Tips, Advice and Discussion (archive)' started by SpaceMagic, Jun 7, 2005.

  1. SpaceMagic macrumors 68000

    SpaceMagic

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Location:
    Cardiff, Wales
    #1
    Look at this:

    http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

    Now please explain to me why Apple want to use Intel processors. Apple themselves quote that a Dual 2.7 is 98% faster than a 3.6Ghz Pentium 4, the very same CPU in their dev kits!

    Why is it, in two years time, we're going to be a step backwards! I want to run Xbench on these Intel PowerMac dev kits!
     
  2. john1123 macrumors regular

    john1123

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Location:
    Down Under
    #2
    somehow, i don't think that Apple will be using P4's...
     
  3. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #3
    Remember, those specs are a Wintel machine running Winblows NT, not OS X....

    OS X always (well mostly) been faster on lower GHz chips.
     
  4. MacSA macrumors 68000

    MacSA

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #4
    People really need to sit down, calm down and think rationally about what is actually going to happen.

    The transition won't be complete until LATE 2007, that's more than 2 years away. Do you honestly think Apple/Intel will be using a 3.6ghz P4 at that time? Apple switched to Intel because their FUTURE processor roadmap looked much better than any thing else around, particularly PPC. IBM failed to provide the kind of hardware Apple was expecting and needed to keep up with the comeptition, they also failed to produce any future processor roadmap that would keep the laptops competitive.

    Steve Jobs himself said the transition isn't nearly is drastic as people have made it out to be.
     
  5. Cooknn macrumors 68020

    Cooknn

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Location:
    Fort Myers, FL
    #5
    My next Power Mac will be a Dual Dual Core 4Ghz running OS X Leopard. Time to start saving :eek: My Dual 2Ghz Power Mac is sure giving me bang for the buck!
     
  6. javiercr macrumors 6502

    javiercr

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Location:
    London
    #6
    you mean a DUAL g5 is faster than a SINGLE p4..well, of course. hopefully apple will use something like a dual xeon 64 or some dual core 64 bit something.
     
  7. javiercr macrumors 6502

    javiercr

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Location:
    London
    #7
     
  8. Jo-Kun macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Location:
    Antwerp-Belgium
    #8
     
  9. SpaceMagic thread starter macrumors 68000

    SpaceMagic

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Location:
    Cardiff, Wales
    #9
    Apple's site also benchmarks against dual xeons.. if you actually click the link. In two years time Intel may be at 4.6ghz.. PPC could be at 3.2... 3.2 still being faster than dual xeons 4.6ghz!
     
  10. Willy S macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    #10
    Apple isn´t switching without a reason. I think it´s down to speed/costs.
     
  11. Jo-Kun macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Location:
    Antwerp-Belgium
    #11

    yes but still benchmarked Windows Intel config to OSX G5

    I think since we see each time a new OSX version comes out existing Macs mostly run snappier thus faster & each Windows version make a PC slower... benchmarks running OSX on Intel probably will beat Windows on the same Intel... and that's where the big difference is... is my Mac faster than a windows box??

    if windows would run on a G5 I think it would allso perform slower... so I guess whatever hardware you compare OSX will win on the OS side...
     
  12. BornAgainMac macrumors 603

    BornAgainMac

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Location:
    Florida Resident
    #12
    Until the benchmarks show the Intel processors of 2007 are faster than the IBM processors of 2007, you will probaby see PowerMac G5s. I wonder how the Intel processors will scale with the XServe mainframe concept. That will be the true test.
     
  13. caveman_uk Guest

    caveman_uk

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    Hitchin, Herts, UK
    #13
    Because it's very carefully selected the results and Apple wants to make the G5's look good? Just a suggestion :rolleyes:

    No one that's used the systems would claim that there's that much of a difference. Most benchmarks (not on the Apple site) seem to claim that in some cases the G5's win and others the Intel based machines win. Try looking at barefeats and you'll see the G5's aren't quite as all conquering as Apple makes out (or you obviously believe). Sadly however the AMD chips look better than both...
     
  14. jayscheuerle macrumors 68020

    jayscheuerle

    #14
    Intel doesn't make faster hardware. It makes cooler hardware.

    Apple wants to make small, cool-running, long battery life devices. The type of stuff that has "future-vision" all over them. IBM has no road-map for this.

    The G5 is a great processor, but it's hot.
     
  15. wordmunger macrumors 603

    wordmunger

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #15
    That's why they're switching laptops and minis first. It's not the P4 that's faster than the G5, it's the Pentium-M that's faster than the G4.
     
  16. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #16
    Never, ever, pay any attention to benchmarks that the manufacturer gives you. It's always (naturally) the most heavily biased bull****.
     
  17. X-Baz macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2002
    Location:
    Leeds, England
    #17
    easy - years ago steve was pissed off with Motorola for falling behind on chip speed. So he went to IBM who promised him a 2Ghz G5, a 3Ghz G5 a year later and (probably) a G5 for a laptop.

    So Steve announced the G5 powermac and said "we'll be at 3Ghz in a year". A year came and went and no 3Ghz. Another year came and went and still no 3Ghz. And even worse, Apple had to go an entire quarter without selling iMacs as IBM could not deliver enough chips (read that again - Apple lost out on a quarter of revenue on one of its main products because of IBM). And as for the G5 power book ...

    So the switch is not about speed, it's about supply. Intel has laptop capable chips today. It has 3Ghz chips today. It has the fabrication capacities to keep up with Apple's demands (IBM's head has been turned by Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo) - and at worst Apple will always be neck and neck with Dell in terms of processor speed and supply rather than looking stupid and not having enough product to ship.
     
  18. Counter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    #18
    It's all about the roadmap. Sucks for people wanting to pounce on a high end G5 after WWDC. I know I don't feel comfortable about the longevity and support. I have this niggling 'doo doo doo doo' in my ears and I don't think it's tinnitus.
     
  19. caveman_uk Guest

    caveman_uk

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    Hitchin, Herts, UK
    #19
    ...and to publish results on a product in development that isn't a shipping machine using a piece of benchmarking software not in any way optimised to run on it (if it runs at all-which it won't unless recompiled at the very least)? Sounds a little unfair....as well as probably breaking an NDA along the way.

    You also forget that if you want a G5 - buy a G5. Every piece of mac software currently available runs on it. It will still run on that machine in 5 years time. New versions will probably run as well (some may not). There will be a massive number of ppc macs around for quite a while and any software developer that actually wants decent sales will ensure their software will run on both architectures for quite some time to come.

    And remember above all. It's a computer - a really nice one. But that's all it is. Compared to everything else in the world it's not worth getting that worked up about.
     
  20. crpchristian macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    #20
    Roadmap..certainly, but by far and large more so for the laptops...and at that..really Powerbook. The ibook is on hold because they don't want it to be a cheap white nearly equal powerbook, the powerbook aparently has NO future with PPC. the G5 is today a rockin proc and PPC, as the consoles indicate, has a future in machines that can deal with all the space/heat issues. You probably won't be seeing any laptop size game consoles with what they are going to be having under the hood.

    The PB issue considered, apple really does NEED to switch, and the Powermac basically is a bit of a victim of that situation and they will all eventually be changed over for the sake of continuity. So at least in about 2yrs time all macs will have procs made by the same company (we haven't had that luxury....have we ever had that scenario) . 6-18 months to now will be transition sadly and this event won't shine for at least 2-3 years but it really, seeing from the preperations apple has done, won't be that bad. (i just bought a new 2.3 dual G5 and i'm absouletly glad i did, I do high end graphics work and its a dream machine, when i need a new one gladly this transition should be over).
     
  21. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #21
    Exactly - but does anyone have any information on the Intel Roadmap and what they hope to have available in 2007?

    D
     
  22. cube macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #22
    HAHAHA

    [If you're going to talk about Pentium M, do the right comparison, against G4.]
     
  23. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #23
    I'm still not exactly sure what to think but I am now starting to lean towards this being a very good thing. I'm sure that the PPC has advantages over x86 in some applications and vice versa. Apple has been saying for years that PPC is faster than Intel at the same or even higher clock speeds. Next year this will either be proved or disproved as hardware reviewers inevitably pitt the Mactels against whatever the latest PPC Macs are. I have a feeling that the switch is not yet set in stone and these hardware reviews will be the deciding factor. If in the next 2 years PPC has a major breakthrough or if when reviewed the PPC completely outdoes the Pentium running the same OS/apps on computers from the same vendor, we may be hearing Steve talking about why Apple decided that PPC is the right answer in a couple of years. I could even see it getting to the point where there are always PPC and Intel Macs available depending on the application you want to run (PPC for multimedia, Intel for more typical home users).

    I believe that they know what they are doing and we just don't know what that is yet.
     
  24. edwin.bossier macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Location:
    Belgium
    #24
    This simply proves that with benchmarking you can proof anything and nothing and you can steer the results the way you want them to be by playing with the parameters.
    I am pretty sure that a Pentium 4 3.6GHz is faster for certain things and a Dual 2.7GHz will be faster for certain things. All I can say is that a Pentium 4 3.4GHz Hyper Threading is a very fast CPU (I use one every day) and I bought the this PC for only 1300$...
    The MHz myth story is a myth itself. For most of the things my good old P3 667MHz is a lot faster than my G4 500MHz, despite all the glamorous words from Steve Jobs, for some Photoshop (and other) tasks however, the G4 is faster - and yes I am still using them both every day.
    A P2 was still a damned slow CPU, but P3's starting from 450MHz are still very usefull CPU's, even today...
     
  25. dubbz macrumors 68020

    dubbz

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    Alta, Norway
    #25
    That Apple is moving to Intel because they want cooler chips must be the proof that Apple won't use or touch the P4's. 'Cause if Hell froze, the current P4s whould certainly heat it up again. They're Hot! (and not in a good way).
     

Share This Page