The thing is there are no numbers to speak for themselves the g5 dose fairly well on barefeats benchmarks and i have yet to see another site with some opteron-g5 benches, the results are too close to confirm anything.
Show me some links if you can find them, i have looked to no avail for some time.
The water cooling issue has been gone over time and time again, it's to reduce the noise nothing more nothing less, sure the 2.5GHz G5 runs hot but nothing a decent copper heatsink and a 80cfm 120mm fan could not sort out.
If the watercooling were to overclock they would bump the vcore, and there would not be IBM docs on the 2.5GHz G5, the very definition of overclocking is running at a higher speed than specced by the manufacturer and those g5's are specced at 2.5GHz. you want proof crack open a g5 take the water cooling rig off the cpu cards and look at the die, in gold indelible ink there will say: powerpc 970FX 2500MHz, your example of overclocked AMD's bump the vcore, which starts degradation in the cpu core because the electrons jump track and start an effect called electron tunneling where by it get's easier and easier for the electrons to jump track as the cpu is used until it gives up all together.
The reason that the precott did not hit 4GHz is because current motherboards could not supply the power in spec to run them so intel scraped the plans to focus on dual core P4's, remember the prescott p4's have large caches which makes the cpu have a much larger surface area where the heat is mostly bunched up on the cpu part not so much the cache.
My point about AMDs sucky 90nm transition is that it happened almost a year ago, 90nm has happened and AMD is winning no prizes for a 200MHz speed bump a year after everyone elce went 90nm and got speed gains the 90nm.
% wise AMD will never do as well as the transition to 130nm from 180nm but sure it's common sense that 90nm chips will top out at higher speeds than 130nm ones as thats where things are headed, a 200MHz speed improvement on the 90nm process is too little to late. To say that AMD did not release a 2.8GHz cpu sooner because of "lack of competetion" you obiously have not trawled through the benchmarks on a decent comparison of the top of the heap P4 and FX cpu's, AMD by no means have such a clear lead that they dont have to bother to release new cpu's even if they did they would release faster cpu's as they become available not when they feel like it .
I wrote my last post in a rush to get out the door to go to the globe theatre, and i apologized for the bad spelling as i was in a rush to make such a snide comment even though i made a point of it is just shallow as is sighting my age, i'm more qualified than you will ever be, i'm an apple certified technician passed all my GCSE's doing 5 a-levels and i'm currently doing pretty well at cisco CCNA (already passes IT essentials 2 ).
The opteron wins on PS and cinema 3d, PS is a big thing but not the end of the world and cinema 3d is so narrow it hardly makes a difference.
People do not spend all day applying filters in photoshop, this is a small collection of benchmarks and is to show how things fair overall even on apps that are not cross platform because to compare premier on the pc to FCP on the mac is unfair, just as it is to compare 3d studio max on the pc to sketchup on the mac is not fair as they are not the same apps, but by comparing cross platform apps you can tell what is in general the faster machine, and they are about neck and neck.
GAMES DO NOT COUNT FOR *****, gamers are not mac users, however mac users can be gamers, it's never been a strong area and never will be, a mac is not a gamers machine, on such a small collection of benchmarks with results so close you can skew results either way, they are pretty close for the real world tests (bar maya dunno WTF is up with that bench).
As things stand the dual core opterons cost the earth and only go to 2.2GHz, the dual core athlons only go to 2.4GHz and are beaten by the G5 in cinébench which when you put the numbers in to the bare feats benchmarks that is will get the same % scores of the dual 2.6GHz opteron the G5 dose well against it, and then there is the dual 2.6GHz opteron, which dose fairly well against it but by no means owns it, neither dose the G5 own the opteron.
Then there is your precious 2.8GHz san diago FX 57, you'd complain if i said the dual 2.5GHz G5 would own it because it's a dual, but apple dose not make high end singles so i will say it, it will get owned in SMP benchmarks which most apps are nowadays.
And we still have not seen what the next G5 update has in store for us.
If you complain about my typing or spelling or grammar i'll start quoting timelessblur .
https://forums.macrumors.com/search/?searchid=1362311
why did you join this forum just to argue with people about things you obviously do not know enough about.
Show me some links if you can find them, i have looked to no avail for some time.
The water cooling issue has been gone over time and time again, it's to reduce the noise nothing more nothing less, sure the 2.5GHz G5 runs hot but nothing a decent copper heatsink and a 80cfm 120mm fan could not sort out.
If the watercooling were to overclock they would bump the vcore, and there would not be IBM docs on the 2.5GHz G5, the very definition of overclocking is running at a higher speed than specced by the manufacturer and those g5's are specced at 2.5GHz. you want proof crack open a g5 take the water cooling rig off the cpu cards and look at the die, in gold indelible ink there will say: powerpc 970FX 2500MHz, your example of overclocked AMD's bump the vcore, which starts degradation in the cpu core because the electrons jump track and start an effect called electron tunneling where by it get's easier and easier for the electrons to jump track as the cpu is used until it gives up all together.
The reason that the precott did not hit 4GHz is because current motherboards could not supply the power in spec to run them so intel scraped the plans to focus on dual core P4's, remember the prescott p4's have large caches which makes the cpu have a much larger surface area where the heat is mostly bunched up on the cpu part not so much the cache.
My point about AMDs sucky 90nm transition is that it happened almost a year ago, 90nm has happened and AMD is winning no prizes for a 200MHz speed bump a year after everyone elce went 90nm and got speed gains the 90nm.
% wise AMD will never do as well as the transition to 130nm from 180nm but sure it's common sense that 90nm chips will top out at higher speeds than 130nm ones as thats where things are headed, a 200MHz speed improvement on the 90nm process is too little to late. To say that AMD did not release a 2.8GHz cpu sooner because of "lack of competetion" you obiously have not trawled through the benchmarks on a decent comparison of the top of the heap P4 and FX cpu's, AMD by no means have such a clear lead that they dont have to bother to release new cpu's even if they did they would release faster cpu's as they become available not when they feel like it .
I wrote my last post in a rush to get out the door to go to the globe theatre, and i apologized for the bad spelling as i was in a rush to make such a snide comment even though i made a point of it is just shallow as is sighting my age, i'm more qualified than you will ever be, i'm an apple certified technician passed all my GCSE's doing 5 a-levels and i'm currently doing pretty well at cisco CCNA (already passes IT essentials 2 ).
The opteron wins on PS and cinema 3d, PS is a big thing but not the end of the world and cinema 3d is so narrow it hardly makes a difference.
People do not spend all day applying filters in photoshop, this is a small collection of benchmarks and is to show how things fair overall even on apps that are not cross platform because to compare premier on the pc to FCP on the mac is unfair, just as it is to compare 3d studio max on the pc to sketchup on the mac is not fair as they are not the same apps, but by comparing cross platform apps you can tell what is in general the faster machine, and they are about neck and neck.
GAMES DO NOT COUNT FOR *****, gamers are not mac users, however mac users can be gamers, it's never been a strong area and never will be, a mac is not a gamers machine, on such a small collection of benchmarks with results so close you can skew results either way, they are pretty close for the real world tests (bar maya dunno WTF is up with that bench).
As things stand the dual core opterons cost the earth and only go to 2.2GHz, the dual core athlons only go to 2.4GHz and are beaten by the G5 in cinébench which when you put the numbers in to the bare feats benchmarks that is will get the same % scores of the dual 2.6GHz opteron the G5 dose well against it, and then there is the dual 2.6GHz opteron, which dose fairly well against it but by no means owns it, neither dose the G5 own the opteron.
Then there is your precious 2.8GHz san diago FX 57, you'd complain if i said the dual 2.5GHz G5 would own it because it's a dual, but apple dose not make high end singles so i will say it, it will get owned in SMP benchmarks which most apps are nowadays.
And we still have not seen what the next G5 update has in store for us.
If you complain about my typing or spelling or grammar i'll start quoting timelessblur .
https://forums.macrumors.com/search/?searchid=1362311
why did you join this forum just to argue with people about things you obviously do not know enough about.