Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Is it just me that I feel this is disturbing? Mac pro marketing shot

T

triotary

macrumors regular
Original poster
Mar 17, 2005
127
0
Last time those marketing gurus benchmarked and thrashed intel-based PCs to the max, with all intentions to make all Motorola-based Macs look and sell better. And these was not long ago.

Today, when the Mac pro uses the cpu core that came from the same factory that made cpu chips for all other intel-based PCs, those Mac marketing gurus benchmarked against a motorola-based G5, which made a joke out of all G5 owners and especially those who recently paid a premium for a Quad G5 2.5G.

Is it just me that I find this is really disturbing? :confused:
 
michaeldmartin said:
You've never heard of companies cheating on benchmarks before? ;)
Click to expand...


Of couse I do, but my point is the fact that they chose one of the latest G5 to benchmark. And how many current and prospective users would read up and find out that these are just marketing BS?
 
It is obvious that it is part of the deal with intel that they could not do a Mac vs PC as their selling point, thus they have no choice but to boot G5.

False advertising, this is the premium you are paying for a Mac.
 
G5 was a lot of spin and a lot of problems for Apple. They wont say that in public but G5 was one of the shortest lived Apple CPu's ever. I knew this when I was comparing benches with a dual 2.0 G5 machine vs a single AMD 3500 (2.2ghz) and the single AMD was coming out on top and that was in both Macaddict and Macworld Magazines at the time.
 
It is just you, you are just dying to be offended by *something* apparently.

FYI the G5 is as different from the G4 system it replaced as the Mac Pro is different from the G5. Naturally the Mac Pro will be faster in various ways than the QUad G5 depending on how you configure the Mac Pro.

Also: You are mistakingly mixing up SPEC marks which (supposedly) only measure CPU performance not overall system performance, with the application performance metrics listed. Speeding up the CPU may only affect one fourth of the overall time it takes to perform some task, the rest of the time being spent on waiting on the Hard Disk, VM to page back in or something else. Notice that the CPU SPECmarks show much greater difference compared to the G5 then do the app performance marks.

The only benchmark that really matters is how much faster X is compared to Y on new computer Z; X, Y and Z being your workflow, apps and your new Mac compared against your old Mac.

If someone just bought a Quad G5, in the middle of the accelerated Intel transition, they are either ignorant of how the entire computing world works or just needed as much muscle as possible at the time. You apparently think they are dummies, not that they want and need to get their work done as fast as was possible *at that time*.

The Pros will now buy a new Mac Pro, if they need the most power they can get, and if they have Intel-native versions of the software they use. Otherwise they will keep using their still functional Quad G5s and PowerPC-native versions of the big software they already own.
 
The P4 wasn't nearly as competitive with the G5's nor AMD's offerings as these new chips are...
I'm still using my 2.5GHz G5 and am happy with it. I won't complain that my 2 year old computer isn't as fast as the newest of the newest. I'll rather be happy knowing that next time I buy a new computer it's going to be faster than my current one.

The G5 is a good chip. But the Core 2 and Xeon are newer, better and faster, and I'm happy Apple are using them.
 
The P4 wasn't nearly as competitive with the G5s nor AMD's offerings as these new chips are...
I'm still using my 2.5GHz G5 and am happy with it. I won't complain that my 2 year old computer isn't as fast as the newest of the newest. I'll rather be happy knowing that next time I buy a new computer it's going to be faster than my current one.

The G5 is a good chip. But the Core 2 and Xeon are newer, better and faster, and I'm happy Apple are using them.
 
I think you guys are missing the point here. I'm questioning how the Marketing department has carefully orchestrated every ounce of Propaganda to sell their products.

Tell me, what is the percentage of all of US here and many many other mac forums, compares to the rest of the world who does not spend their time looking through forums?
 
Yeah, so maybe the marketing department is using a little bit of dirty advertising....what company hasn't? It's much better than M$ trying to pass off XP as stable and secure.
 
Anyone remembering the EU telling Apple to stop the most powerful personal computer spin? It was B.S. and the E.U. knew it and so did Apple. Apple did as told. I think they did a heck of a job pushing G5s considering all the issues,problems etc though I never bought a G5 based Mac;) G5 was riddled with problems everywhere it went. Dont let the door kick you in the...just as G4:p One thing for sure Apples offerings now have some serious CPU horsepower:) Onlything is now they are going cheapo on graphics:(
 
Dont Hurt Me said:
Anyone remembering the EU telling Apple to stop the most powerful personal computer spin? It was B.S. and the E.U. knew it and so did Apple. Apple did as told. I think they did a heck of a job pushing G5s considering all the issues,problems etc though I never bought a G5 based Mac;) G5 was riddled with problems everywhere it went. Dont let the door kick you in the...just as G4:p One thing for sure Apples offerings now have some serious CPU horsepower:) Onlything is now they are going cheapo on graphics:(
Click to expand...

I've had my G5 for almost 2 years and it's an excellent computer, never given me problems. The processor itself isn't a bad chip, but looking back, Apple using it probably was a mistake and the Intel transition should've come after the G4. But back then, who knew that IBM would never be able to deliver 3 GHz? The processor's only problem is the fact that IBM, who's not a major player in the chip market, made it, and frankly, never seemed to give 2 sh*ts about it. It was their bastard red-headed step child. If the G5 would've been made by Intel or AMD, it would probably still be in use, well past the 3 GHz mark, and the x86 transition probably would've never happened.
 
yg17 said:
Yeah, so maybe the marketing department is using a little bit of dirty advertising....what company hasn't? It's much better than M$ trying to pass off XP as stable and secure.
Click to expand...

Indeed! Now take that context and applies it on a way larger scale, and let's say the major news about what is going on in the world from NBC, FOX, ABC, CNN, BBC, CBS, and your major newspaper such as NY times, LA times, USA today, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, etc.
 
MovieCutter said:
Did the Quad get slower since 3 hours ago? I didn't think so.
Click to expand...

You didn't think so, doesn't make it less true.

Since a lot of a Mac's value is perceived rather than actual, yes, a Quad got slower now than 3 hours ago.
 
$3299 for a Quad 2.5Ghz G5
$2799 for a refurbished Quad 2.5Ghz G5
$2500 for the new Mac pro

I pity those who are so bought into apple's marketing BS and paid for the G5 quad... a lot of my friends did >.< mostly girls
 
The Quads aren't that bad, really… and what would you expect Apple to do? Tell everyone to go buy a PC?
 
triotary said:
Last time those marketing gurus benchmarked and thrashed intel-based PCs to the max, with all intentions to make all Motorola-based Macs look and sell better. And these was not long ago.

Today, when the Mac pro uses the cpu core that came from the same factory that made cpu chips for all other intel-based PCs, those Mac marketing gurus benchmarked against a motorola-based G5, which made a joke out of all G5 owners and especially those who recently paid a premium for a Quad G5 2.5G.

Is it just me that I find this is really disturbing? :confused:
Click to expand...
yea. welcome to america.
 
your welcome to all of you sheep, who actually believed that the G5 was a superior chip when it wasn't

any 10 year old with google could have figured out that when apple used PPC chips they simply weren't effective

consumers got smart, it isn't 2001 anymore where everyone is like OMG LOOK WHAT I CAN DO! EMAIL!
 
omg, stop the whining. The G5 was a great chip, but it's 3 years old now and woodcrest is brand new. Do you really think the G5 is going to be able to compete with something 3 years newer? Give me a break. :rolleyes:
 
Why is it surprising? Apple has consistently been pompus enough in recent history to talk $#!t about anything non-apple. Apple is the rich spoiled kid that people like because he drives a nice car, but that all the other kids hate.
 
dude why are you guys whining this is capitalism at it's finest. Apple is your typical company squeezing your wallet in every possible way. Microsoft does it, apple does, dell does it.....what are you going to do about it....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back