rmanger said:
I definitely believe that the G5 is truly the fastest desktop processor chip among all those AMDs and Intels out there, without a doubt.
However, this takes into account that everything is fair. The problem is, very little is fair towards Macs. I give the following four reasons:
I totally hear you. For sake of getting into this discussion I'm going to quote you, because I agree on all fronts... however, I have some (interesting?) points:
rmanger said:
1. It isn't fair that PCs can be self-built (saving much money), while Macs can't be self-built.
This is true. But you won't get much _speed_ out of custom building a mac. You'd only save money. Maybe you could get DDR2 667 ram in some 3rd party motherboard, but the whole stability of a closed architecture would be lost. So, there are clearly pros and cons. Cheaper = less reliable.
rmanger said:
2. It isn't fair that Windows has an over 90% user base, even though we have a better OS.
Amen. Although some of that is Apple's fault. I think now is the best time in Apple history to be a Mac user, though. I'm glad XP isn't as ugly as previous incarnations, but DAMN is it useless.
rmanger said:
3. It isn't fair that developers don't optimize their software on the Macs as much as they do on the PC.
Yeah this is a major issue. Glenda Adams had a great rebuttal to the "Why is Doom 3 slower on a Mac" thread on IMG. Boils down to about 10 issues, many of which are somewhat obvious to us on these boards. However, some interesting ones were the efficiency in integer math in x86 land. There's less penalty in conversionto floating point (I guess.) Another was obvious, but is why Macs are much better at usability than a PC: we truly multitask, so no single app will ever get 100% of the CPU like on a PC. That's why running 10 apps at once on a Mac is the same user experience as 1 (RAM permitting), but on a PC it's a living hell. So, again, it's a tradeoff. I'd rather have a more productive work machine than a faster game machine.
rmanger said:
4. It isn't fair that games are considered a standard benchmark in most mainstream circles which, coincidentally, is the single weak point of the Mac.
Indeed! But let's keep perspective. The people on this board, and most computer enthusiast boards, are gamers. So these are the benchmarks they flock to. It also goes to show you what these people do on their computers-- play games. They shell out $1000's of dollars for game machines. Well, I make a living on my Mac, and do so in a more efficient manner than my PC counterparts. So I'll let them have gaming benchmarks for now. Sometime in the future it'd be nice to get FPS parity, but it ain't a priority for me. Even 20% slower won't actually effect my gaming experience.
rmanger said:
In short, Doom 3 is why many people think Macs are slow and overpriced. 😛
However, Doom 3 only runs well on nVidia hardware. Whereas, ATI totally DOMINATES nVidia on nearly every other game on the PC. So, it does go to show how poorly a single application's benchmarks are for evaluation. It also goes to show, as Glenda pointed out, how PC vendors can highly optimize their software for particular applications. This is not really possible on the Mac.
rmanger said:
But seriously, the unfortunate fact is that all the unfairness means that benchmarks will usually go in favor of the PC. Unless you're Apple.
Amen. Yeah Apple loves to quote 40 filter Photoshop tests. I guess that is applicable to photo editors in a high volume (magazine?) environment... but pretty much no one else. Furthermore, does it *really* matter if I can shave 5 seconds off a minute of work? Unless volume is paramount the answer is "no." Which bring me to my next point ...
If you need to shave a couple seconds (or more) off of volume work such as rendering or complex computation ... get an xServe. Apple, ahdns down, as the easiest to set up and fastest cluster computing on the planet. User oriented tasks will be faster on a Mac because you're more efficient on it, and you can offload non-user tasks like rendering to other computers.