Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Exposing the Anti - Apple bias
- Thread starter matthew24
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A very long read, but puts everything into perspective... Definatly worth a look!
Go Apple! What an exciting time to be a switcher!
Go Apple! What an exciting time to be a switcher!
Damn... did he really say that the PPC 980 would have up to four times the performance of the 970 at the same clock speeds ???? Holy gFlops batman!
The rebuttal of the cries from the Wintel world about the benchmarks being skewed was very good. On toward the end, when he got into speculation of Intel's propaganda, was not as good.
The first half featured quotes from documented sources and a link to the VeriTest document. The second half had no documented sources. It would have been a better article had sources been cited or if the second half were labeled as speculation.
The first half featured quotes from documented sources and a link to the VeriTest document. The second half had no documented sources. It would have been a better article had sources been cited or if the second half were labeled as speculation.
Thank you for the link. I found it most enlightening. Quite a nice rebuttle of all of the claims that the speed tests were somehow skewed.
He has a few of his own innaccuracies, for instance his thoughts on hyperthreading. It does slow down some apps a little, but it speeds others up a little, and makes multitasking much smoother in nearly all circumstances. In my oppinion it's not a bad technology because it speeds up the areas where the PC systems are often slowest: Multitasking with a single CPU.
No, he said precicely this: "Truth: Intel's Hyperthreading does not improve a PC's performance. In fact, it slows the system down seriously. . . In other words, Hyperthreading is just another Intel technology that does not work on currently produced machines."
Originally posted by daveL
So your saying that Intel's hyperthreading helps make up for the deficiencies in WinDozeI mean multitasking is such a new idea, really bleeding edge stuff ;-) It's not hard to understand why MS would need some help!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Well, we'll agree windows is not great at multitasking, but NT in 1995 and then Windows 2000 were better than any Mac OS before X. So I'll also agree it isn't cutting edge stuff.
But "performance" in the context of the article was regarding performance on SPEC tests... not everyday performance.
Your initial comment was:
The tests were not about running multiple apps. They were spec tests and single app tests.
Although I do agree that the comment "does not work" goes too far... "does not work as well as it could" may have been a better chosen phrasing.
Your initial comment was:
The tests were not about running multiple apps. They were spec tests and single app tests.
Although I do agree that the comment "does not work" goes too far... "does not work as well as it could" may have been a better chosen phrasing.
I agree. He did some good research and put quite a few falsehoods to rest, but he gets a little too much involved in the name-calling, which always leads impartial readers to question his bias.
Rule #1 for pro-Apple journalists: "Don't call others hypocrites for having a pro-Wintel bias when you obviously have a pro-Apple bias."
Overall a good article however. The G5 is going to be an awesome architecture.
I have a P4 2.6 ghz. with Hyperthreading and it seems to work pretty well. If you like to browse the web while waiting for a DVD to render and burn for example, it is nice to have a few spare CPU cycles so that your machine doesn't lag so noticeably. Almost as good as having a second processor, but not quite.
The 980 is supposed to have true dual cores, not just a simulated dual core like a P4. This should be sweet. Imagine, your dual processor 980 will be like having quad processors...
Let's hope so. I tend to think we may just see a single core 980 with SMT producing two logical cpus per chip. I don't believe Intel is due to go Dual Core until they move to 65nm fabs.
My best guess is the PPC 980 has:
1. Simultaneous Multithreading
2. Ondie Memory Controller
3. Improved Altivec
4. Improved L2 Cache and support for L3
Thanks for the link. I agree that it's a good read, but the author does himself a disservice with all the Wintel conspiracy stuff in the second half. The best way to deal with situations like this is to take the high road and offer clearly-stated facts that rebut the competition.
His conspiracy theories may even be correct, but they still detract from his main premise.
His conspiracy theories may even be correct, but they still detract from his main premise.
Oh, can you tell me what tasks I have to run to make my Powerbook lag when browsing the internet? Short of turning it off!
I invariably surf the web when waiting for things to be burnt and it seems to work the same as if nothing else was going on in the background. Or has my bias for Mac blinded me in some way?
.Curious. Where did you read that the 980 would be dual core? I don't *think* that's accurate, although it's all speculation, at this point. I had heard that the 980 would have twice the integer and fp units, compared to the 970, but a single, possibly improved, Altivec. Anyway, as I understand it, the big difference between the PowerX CPUs and their 9xx counterparts is that the 9xx is *not* dual core but adds Altivec. I guess we'll all know for sure when the specs are published.
I was one of those that thought Apple was cheating on the benchmarks until I benchmarked on a 3Ghz P4 and realised Apple was telling the truth, those G5s are MUCH faster than the P4/AMD XP.
you know the one excuse PC lovers are gonna use to sidestep this writing? "It's too long.." LMAO...
what a great article. eat that PC weenies...
i can't believe how many people can love to be as ignorant as they are.
what a great article. eat that PC weenies...
i can't believe how many people can love to be as ignorant as they are.
Very illuminating
I also kind of cringed when he got into the conspiracy angle,its right where a PC user will have been reading intently maybe agreeing with some of it will go ah I knew it a Mac zealot.
I really hope Veritest and maybe Luxology do take some legal action.If I was veritest I would be pretty damn mad
I liked the bit where he alluded the G5 might be even "faster" then people are thinking......
Stu.
I also kind of cringed when he got into the conspiracy angle,its right where a PC user will have been reading intently maybe agreeing with some of it will go ah I knew it a Mac zealot.
I really hope Veritest and maybe Luxology do take some legal action.If I was veritest I would be pretty damn mad
I liked the bit where he alluded the G5 might be even "faster" then people are thinking......
Stu.
Originally posted by billyboy
Oh, can you tell me what tasks I have to run to make my Powerbook lag when browsing the internet? Short of turning it off!
I invariably surf the web when waiting for things to be burnt and it seems to work the same as if nothing else was going on in the background. Or has my bias for Mac blinded me in some way?
Yea, easily.
1. Pick out your favorite DVD
2. Start encoding it to DiVx
3. Set the encoding process's priority to highest.
4. Start using your computer for anything else.
5. Experiance massive amounts of lag.
The reason it runs so slow is that the encoding process will get all of the cpu cycles it wants. Whatever is left over is what will be used to run the UI or any other programs running.
Now to be able to encode and still use your computer as normal. Change step #3 to:
3. Set encoding process priority to Idle.
Now instead of getting all the cycles it wants, it will only get what is left over by the other programs running on your computer.
Burning a CD is a lot different than encoding something which is where hyperthreading and dual processor computers excel at.
This is all a load of "you know what."
You can't compare x86 to PPC with the same compiler. Get the best for each, running as near to the same routines, and see what happens. Nothing like this will happen until G5 machines are out for use by the general public (September).
Either way, it is most impressive that a Apple "desktop" machine can be seriously compared with a x86 based "workstation."
As to the remarks about wireless networking, PCI-X, Bluetooth, S-ATA and all... none of that is being used now for serious workstation stuff. Wireless (802.11a/b/g) is not secure, PCI-X is new and for the most part un-used, same for BlueTooth (as well as security issues), and S-ATA should be more prevalent than it is, once it is actually faster than IDE stuff.
That combined wth his neverending use of the "Wintel" comment, just makes me look at what he says with a grain of salt. If you are going to shoot down the detractors, don't sink to their level to do it. Someone needs to be honorable in all of this.
You can't compare x86 to PPC with the same compiler. Get the best for each, running as near to the same routines, and see what happens. Nothing like this will happen until G5 machines are out for use by the general public (September).
Either way, it is most impressive that a Apple "desktop" machine can be seriously compared with a x86 based "workstation."
As to the remarks about wireless networking, PCI-X, Bluetooth, S-ATA and all... none of that is being used now for serious workstation stuff. Wireless (802.11a/b/g) is not secure, PCI-X is new and for the most part un-used, same for BlueTooth (as well as security issues), and S-ATA should be more prevalent than it is, once it is actually faster than IDE stuff.
That combined wth his neverending use of the "Wintel" comment, just makes me look at what he says with a grain of salt. If you are going to shoot down the detractors, don't sink to their level to do it. Someone needs to be honorable in all of this.