IBM vs. Intel

[Naimfan]

I decided to not bother with benches, you can pull benches to show pc is faster and pull them to show 2 G5s are faster. what it boils down to is we still use 2 cpu's to compare with 1 from the otherside. that alone should tell you something and i have yet to see real world benches where single G5s can match single cpus the otherside has. Intel is number 1 and there are many reasons for it. Apple isnt running those fastest PC adds and there are reasons for that.

I know what you mean about benches--I saw a bunch and the only thing I can reasonably conclude is that there is a lot of variation. I found some where the dual G5s smoked the fastest Intels, and vice versa. What I did find interesting is that the single 1.8 G5 is generally only a bit slower than a P4 at 3 or 3.2 GHz. From other benchmarks I've seen for other Intel based machines, I'd expect the 1.8 to be faster than most of the Intel/Windows machines that are for sale.

Intel is number one in terms of sales to the desktop market but is not remotely competitive in the high end. Since the high end is now migrating to the desktop (and laptop), Intel has good cause to be concerned. Technologically speaking, in general it has been easier for technology to trickle down than up--and Intel is trying to "trickle up." Of course, Intel understands that and is taking steps to move upmarket, which is eminently sensible. But in a war between IBM and Intel, give me IBM.

Best,

Bob

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

I hear you Bob, I like the AMD stuff. its fast but at lower clocks like G5. they have it running cooler and slower when no work load like the G5s performance settings and its beating and or matching the Intels in Gaming. All three of these chips can kick butt and do what you want now how long will it take for Apple to give G4 the boot in powerbook and Imac and update those 1.6/1.8 machines? I hope it wont be June WWDC.

 

[Naimfan]

How long will it take for Apple to give G4 the boot in powerbook and Imac and update those 1.6/1.8 machines? I hope it wont be June WWDC.

I'm with you on hoping it won't be WWDC before the PB and iMac get G5s, but I sure wouldn't hold my breath! My feeling is that we'll see one more revision of the PB with a G4--perhaps the 1.5 chip mentioned elsewhere. I actually think the iMac might get the G5 before the PB, and I've got to say the iMac desperately needs it--I don't think they are competitive pricewise. A friend of mine has an eMachines PC which has been nothing but trouble, and I told her to look at the Apple Store. Her first question, after seeing the 17" iMac was "Wow! Cool! Does it do the dishes for that much money?" She would be much better off with an eMac, or buying one of the 1.8 GHz PMs with a display. (Sorry--I know--preaching to the choir!)

The PBs I think are still very competitive in terms of price/performance/engineering/etc. (I understand we probably disagree on this....) My guess is that a G5 PB will happen later rather than sooner, and that when it does happen it might not be a killer leap forward performance wise anyway. A G4 PB at 1.5 GHz, with a 5400 or 7200 RPM HD, would represent a significant upgrade. That said, I also think that would be as far as the G4 could ever go in a PB--anything short of a G5 after that would be a disaster.

Best,

Bob

 

[Snowy_River]

... what it boils down to is we still use 2 cpu's to compare with 1 from the otherside...

You know, it's funny, I didn't post that link or those benchmarks claiming that they were unbiased, but that was all anyone could say about them. Yes, I know that benchmarks cover a wide range. The point that I was trying to make, which it seems based on some of your continuing comments you completely missed, is that the duals are compared to duals, and the singles are compared to singles. This has been, more or less, typical of many, if not most, of the benchmarks that I've seen.

Want to compare a dual 2GHz G5 to something? Better make it a dual 3.2GHz Xeon. Want to compare a single 3.2GHz P4 to something? Better make it the single 1.6GHz G5 (or maybe, maybe, the dual 1.8GHz G5, as we don't have a single 1.8GHz G5 to compare anymore).

Making such comparisons, some benchmarks will show the G5s in the lead, and some will show the Intel/AMD in the lead. On the whole, they're probably about even. And, you know what? That means that we're right there! It's not quite the good old days when the G3 was beating the pants off the P2, but it's a far cry better than where we were a year ago, when the P4 was beating the pants off the G4.

I decided to not bother with benches.... Intel is number 1 and there are many reasons for it...

You know, at least I provided some kind of reference for the point that I was making.

...Apple isnt running those fastest PC adds and there are reasons for that.

That's funny, given that I already told you that I saw one about a week and a half ago.

... like I said, go troll somewhere else ...

 

[Snowy_River]

...A friend of mine has an eMachines PC which has been nothing but trouble, and I told her to look at the Apple Store. Her first question, after seeing the 17" iMac was "Wow! Cool! Does it do the dishes for that much money?"...

Hi Bob,

Has your friend ever heard of 'buyer beware'? She spends a little bit of money on an eMachine, and it's nothing but trouble. She has the option of getting an iMac but balks at the price. If she doesn't want to pay for a quality computer (whether it's a PC or a Mac), then she shouldn't complain when her machine doesn't behave itself. After all, 'you get what you pay for'.

...The PBs I think are still very competitive in terms of price/performance/engineering/etc. (I understand we probably disagree on this....) My guess is that a G5 PB will happen later rather than sooner, and that when it does happen it might not be a killer leap forward performance wise anyway. A G4 PB at 1.5 GHz, with a 5400 or 7200 RPM HD, would represent a significant upgrade...

I'd actually, to some extent, disagree as well. I think that the PBs are rather long in the tooth at this point. Unfortunately, Apple is between a rock and a hard place with them. They can't reduce prices, or they'd have a PR nightmare when the PB G5s come out and they have to raise prices again. So, I'm guessing that the PB G5 is just about the highest item on their priority list right now. Also, that 1.5GHz G4 isn't supposed to be available until this Fall. That's an awefully long time to wait for a G4 update. No, I think those are targetted at the G4 iBooks.

Cheers!

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

I suggest you read december issue of MacWorld or Mac Addict if you are so confident of the G5. Bank of America has predicted G5 sales will fall again to around 195,000 this qtr. down from 205,000 last qtr which was down from the one prior. If G5 is so great then why are sales getting less and less? Rdowns I wish you were in here and could tell us what Macworld said. I have MacAddict and they admitted that those 2 g5s you are bragging about didnt win every test and split the benches and that again was vs 1 cpu from the otherside.( gaming benches were not even close except for 1 title quake3. G5 is nice but if Apple continues its stingy ways of handing out technology its future isnt going to be as bright as you may hope. we should be talking about G5 Imacs and updated Powermacs by now but we are not. its been 8 months. Apple is wasting time or has gotten use to motorola's do nothing ways. (edit) January issue and they split the benches

 

[Naimfan]

Snowy--

Fair points.

My friend does understand the idea of "You (mostly) get what you pay for. And in her defense, it was her ex-husband who bought the eMachines. But I think her reaction a valid one, that has been pointed out by many others--it is awfully difficult to explain to someone why they have to pay more for what looks like (and is) a slower machine. There is a HP Pavilion advertised in the Sunday CompUSA flyer--it's a 3 GHz P4, 512 ram, 160 gig HD, and Superdrive, complete with 17" flat panel screen, for $1379. Oh, and it includes a printer (which I'm sure is worth every penny! ;-) ). Compare that to a 17" iMac, which has half the ram, half the HD space, and a processor that LOOKS like it is only 40% as fast. You and I know it's not QUITE that simple, but in value terms, the vast majority of the population would look at those two and pick the HP. And I'd be astonished if the HP didn't annihilate the iMac on the test bench.

On PBs: The current 1.25 GHz PB is bettered by roughly 25% by the desktop G5 1.6. That's it. Some of that gap can be closed by putting in a faster HD, and more of it can be closed by upping the G4 to 1.5 GHz (which was guessed to be available in quantity by Q2/Q3). If there's a better laptop out there for the money, I've not seen it, though I accept that is a value judgment that others might well make differently.

I'd love to see a G5 PB, but I think it will be later rather than sooner. And I don't think a G5 PB will offer all that much of a performance leap over the existing line unless Apple puts faster HDs and something like a 2.0 GHz G5 in it--the G5 doesn't appear to be any faster, clock for clock, than the G4.

Best,

Bob

 

[avkills]

--the G5 doesn't appear to be any faster, clock for clock, than the G4.

Best,

Bob

I think it all depends on the software and how well it is optimized and what you are doing. Barefeats shows a Dual 2Ghz G5 with one processor disabled still beating a dual 1.42 Ghz G4 at FCP rendering. With both processors it spanks the G4 big time.

Games are not going to benefit all that much from dual processors. Quake does because they made it SMP aware. I also believe the way Apple interfaces to the graphics card is a bit different than on the PC side. Most PC games are written for DirectX and not OpenGL. Game benches do not mean much to me.

My Dual G5 matched a Dual Xeon 2.4 Ghz machine at Cinebench, so I am not disappointed with the G5 performance at all. It is fast, much faster than any G4 machine. Apple is in the game with the G5. A pre-built Dual Xeon machine with the same specs costs just as much.

-mark

 

[Snowy_River]

... Game benches do not mean much to me...

Me neither. I don't use my computer much for gaming. If I wanted to game, I'd buy a console system.

...Apple is in the game with the G5. A pre-built Dual Xeon machine with the same specs costs just as much.

-mark

I completely agree.

Cheers!

 

[DeepIn2U]

IBM their technology not their own????

I just had a conversation with someone at work (an annoying fellow, but knowledgeable all the same) whom used to work at IBM Canada.

He, overhearing a conversation between someone else and myself over IBM and their innovation, mentioned that IBM "does not make any computer components themselves". ???? He went on to further mention "just look at their computer line they don't use their own chips, they don't use.......any of their own parts in any of their computers". Now take note that the pause just above in that last quote was due to me quickly (possibly rudely with a polite tone mixed with confusion) interrupting him stating "IBM currently does use their own chips/cpu's into some of their Blade Server products its the PowerPC 970". Although I did interrupt it seemed that I did cause him to pause with a little thought - just my perception.

Now he may have something here, he mentioned "IBM just acquires resources and technology from other companies it swallows up; now you may see an IBM lab but the personnel is still part of the said company it swallowed up, and IBM has little input over what kind/direction of research by those employees. IBM hasn't innovated nor made anything since the AS/400 computers." Now the AS/400 system might be my error in remembering the correct system, but I believe that Im not too far off of the system he mentioned.

Is he correct????? Or is this just related to IBM Canada. Sorry if this seems off topic, but its IBM related and the conversation does have some bearing onto IBM's technology vs Intel, no???

Cheers

 

[Snowy_River]

...I have MacAddict and they admitted that those 2 g5s you are bragging about didnt win every test...

Who's bragging? Since when is saying that the G5 can go toe-to-toe with the P4 bragging? If I were saying that the G5 could absolutely smoke the P4 across the board, that would be bragging (and I should have my head examined - I know that the G5 isn't quite that good). As you pointed out, the G5 didn't win every test. But, by implication, it didn't lose every test either. It seems reasonably clear that the G5 is a contender in the modern chip market.

Oh, and here's an article concerning one of the primary heavy hitter applications that I use, VectorWorks (a completely cross-platform 2D/3D CAD application), and how it's performance compares. Just to summ it up:

Looking at the scores the single [1.8GHz] G5 turned in a combined total score of 240 compared to the 2.8Ghz Intel Xeon processor's score of 306.3 (lower is better); that's a 28 percent faster difference.

So, the single G5 is faster, over all, than the single Xeon. By extrapolation, even if a 3.2GHz Xeon were used, it's total score would be something like 268, still leaving the 1.8GHz G5 11% faster.

My point is that there are a lot of factors to consider, and it's always going to be a horse race anyway. For someone using VectorWorks, the G5 seems to be, hands down, the superior processor right now. But, who knows where it'll be in a year or two. For gaming, Intel/AMD based machines are the better choice right now (excluding consideration of consoles), who knows where that will be in a year or two.

In any event, the G5 is a competitive machine. Apple is back where it should be.

As far as them having 'stingy ways of handing out technology', do you have any idea what goes into developing a new machine? Do you think that they wanted to let the G4 languish as their top-of-the-line for so long? Don't you think that they're working their arses off to get the upgraded G5s out ASAP? If so, you're far more cynical than even I would have guessed...


In any event, Cheers!

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Cheers snowy, but if you are going to post benches i can help this then, If I buy a 2 thousand dollar machine I want it to do EVERYTHING including games. the dual G5s are running about 70 frames from what i seen so they would be lower then the lowest machine on this bench. In case you cant see it the top mark is almost 300 frames per second.

 

[Snowy_River]

Cheers snowy, but if you are going to post benches i can help this then, If I buy a 2 thousand dollar machine I want it to do EVERYTHING including games. the dual G5s are running about 70 frames from what i seen so they would be lower then the lowest machine on this bench. In case you cant see it the top mark is almost 300 frames per second.

Well, you can expect that, but I don't know that you can blame all of that on Apple. As I understand it (though I don't follow these issues much, as I'm not much of a 'gamer'), Unreal Tournament has some bugs in it that prevent it from running well on any Mac, including the G5. Most PC games these days are written for DirectX, not OpenGL, so, unless MS ports DirectX to the Mac, Mac gamer's are behind the 8-ball to begin with. It's not that the capability isn't there (as you observed with your post noting that Quake3 actually runs faster on a G5 than on an Intel/AMD - I saw that same benchmark somewhere else, too), it's that the programmers aren't taking the time to rewrite their code to take advantage of the capability. So, I'd say that if you want a hard-core gaming computer that can also do regular computer stuff, get a top-end PC. Until the game makers decide to properly port their code to the Mac (i.e. write it from the ground up for both platforms, rather than writing for one then trying to shoe-horn it into the other later), a Mac isn't going to be a machine you'll be satisfied with.

For me, doing my professional work, it's more than just satisfactory...

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

I agree, seems for the pros the duals are just fine for what they need. I have my own business but all i need for it is a g3. bills & letters etc. I really love Mac OS but i like to come home sometimes and do some fun gaming. Having to wait 6 months to a year for a favorite title on mac is a bitch and then to find out it runs like crap is even worse. Though iam still waiting and will wait to see if they get off their corporate cans and make a decent Imac the Alienware Aurora with a AMD64 3400 in it and a 9800xt would be the ticket. same price as a 1.6 . I guess we will keep waiting for those new Macs and see what Apple does.

 

[crazzyeddie]

Dont Hurt Me, you're the one who should be embarrassed by your benchmarks. Those are all using DirectX... so why not post some comparative OpenGL benchmarks using Quake3, since that is so well developed on both platforms... Oh, wait, I might just have some...

You can see that even that Opteron is running UT2k3 on DirectX, so just scroll down to that Quake3 benchmark, and do some reading while youre at it.

 

[blue&whiteman]

I would say that intels biggest threat is amd

 

[Snowy_River]

Dont Hurt Me, you're the one who should be embarrassed by your benchmarks. Those are all using DirectX... so why not post some comparative OpenGL benchmarks using Quake3, since that is so well developed on both platforms... Oh, wait, I might just have some...

You can see that even that Opteron is running UT2k3 on DirectX, so just scroll down to that Quake3 benchmark, and do some reading while youre at it.

Hi CrazzyEddie. DHM's point is that he wants a machine that will run the games that he wants to run. Apparently URT2k3 is one of them. Given that, the performance of the G5 isn't that great. And, if that's what he's after, then I have to agree with him. He doesn't want a G5. In a side-by-side comparison, using that as a benchmark, the G5 fails miserably.

Now, as I've already said, I don't see that as being a problem with the G5 or Apple, but with the game makers. However, regardless of where the fault lies, for someone like DHM who wants the gaming performance, the G5 falls short of the mark. For him, I'd say get an Opteron, or something similar, and more power to him.

(Gee, who'd have thought with the way that DHM and I were haranguing each other for a while there that I would have stepped in to defend his point of view? )

 

[thatwendigo]

the dual G5s are running about 70 frames from what i seen so they would be lower then the lowest machine on this bench. In case you cant see it the top mark is almost 300 frames per second.

Using an overclocked Athlon FX-53, a Radeon 9800 XT, and DirectX9... Way to tell the whole story. DHM.

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it until you get it through your head, because you don't ever seem to get this point. The reason that macs are behind on graphics cards is that Apple has to secure drivers, ADC connectors, and a sufficient production of the altered GPUs to stock t heir machines. In other words, in a cost/benefit analysis, the sheer expense of keeping right at the curve on materials is going to be a waste, because we can do everything we need to on Radeon 9800 Pros, and the gaming market isn't going to suddenly come to us without the development environments and hardware they want. Since we don't have it, you're better off buying your Alienware and stopping this cluttering of the boards with your inane repetition and misinformation.

Having to wait 6 months to a year for a favorite title on mac is a bitch and then to find out it runs like crap is even worse.

Buy a console, because it's cheaper and the release cycle is even faster than on PCs.

Who's bragging? Since when is saying that the G5 can go toe-to-toe with the P4 bragging? If I were saying that the G5 could absolutely smoke the P4 across the board, that would be bragging (and I should have my head examined - I know that the G5 isn't quite that good). As you pointed out, the G5 didn't win every test. But, by implication, it didn't lose every test either. It seems reasonably clear that the G5 is a contender in the modern chip market.

...

As far as them having 'stingy ways of handing out technology', do you have any idea what goes into developing a new machine? Do you think that they wanted to let the G4 languish as their top-of-the-line for so long? Don't you think that they're working their arses off to get the upgraded G5s out ASAP? If so, you're far more cynical than even I would have guessed...

Hi, Snowy. I've read some of your posts, and I tend to agree with a lot of what you say. Since it looks like you've not met one of the resident turncoats, I think I'll step in for a moment and tell you about DHM.

First, he does, in fact, think he knows what goes into designing a machine. It's a magic process that takes a matter of minutes, and only Apple's stingy and flint-hearted nature keeps it from releasing 8.0ghz quad processor machines with the unreleased R450 graphics cards, PC9000 RAM, and full RAID-5 terrabyte arrays. If they weren't so selfish, these machines would cost about the same as a pizza, do your laundry for you, and be sure you never miss an anniversary or birthday again. Since Apple is sitting on this wondrous hardware, it's obvious that AMD is the saviour of mankind, and anyone who defends the macintosh platform from unsubstantiated claims that it's being trounced is obviously a pathetic sycophant who wants to have Steve Jobs' children. As if that weren't damning enough, these same sad individuals also wish that all macs were back on G4s, and would gladly peel off their own skin and sell it so that they could buy one.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

thatwendigo you are something special!, looking at AMD64 3400 or 3200 or even P4s at 3.0 with directx these things are pushing 100 to 200 FPS then a dual G5 pushing open GL can. when comparing the 1 AMDfx51 to 2 2.0 G5s running a open gl game as quake3 Mac world showed at 1024x768 the dual G5 at 294 and Aurora AMDfx51 getting 335 and thats the one Gaming test that Mac can run well. I dont play Quake3 anyways. Thatwendigo just admit it! Mac Hardware doesnt match the otherside unless you are running Photoshop. Apple has to address this problem of selling behind the times hardware or risks loosing it all one day. Look I have had Macs for years and was supporting them but this hardware thing of theirs has bothered me since getting my first Performa and finding out I had to run wolfentein 3d in a little window. That was a great game by the way.

 

[boomtopper]

it is so ironic that IBM were the company that set out the standard for the x86 architecture. That was back in the day when risc and cisc processors were batteling it out for superiorty but we all know that cisc won out in the battle for most common processor. And now IBM has now sided with power pc architecture and are building some ingenious processors.

 

[thatwendigo]

thatwendigo you are something special!, looking at AMD64 3400 or 3200 or even P4s at 3.0 with directx these things are pushing 100 to 200 FPS then a dual G5 pushing open GL can. when comparing the 1 AMDfx51 to 2 2.0 G5s running a open gl game as quake3 Mac world showed at 1024x768 the dual G5 at 294 and Aurora AMDfx51 getting 335 and thats the one Gaming test that Mac can run well.

Citations, DHM. Show us the numbers or shut up.

If you go back to the thread that you started, I quote anandtech's numbers for Quake III FPS. For the P4EE 3.4 with a 9800XT tops out at 570.7 FPS, which is a lead of 35 frames over the FX-53's 525.7, and a lead of 81.6 frames over the 3400+'s 489.1. If you're going to throw numbers, get them right. Barefeats clocks the dual 2.0 G5 at 226 FPS at a higher resolution than used in the anandtech tests, so the comparison is a little flawed. I need numbers for the Athlon 64 3400+ at 1280x768, preferably on a 9800 Pro rather than an XT, to get a real comparison between the two.

However, you said something that really ought to make you stop anyways. You're talking about PCs with twice the graphics card and DirectX. We get ports that try to mirror DirectX calls onto OpenGL, or that don't properly implement OpenGL APIs. As such, we are going to have lower games performance... So what? I admit that, and I've never denied it.

Apple has to address this problem of selling behind the times hardware or risks loosing it all one day. Look I have had Macs for years and was supporting them but this hardware thing of theirs has bothered me since getting my first Performa and finding out I had to run wolfentein 3d in a little window. That was a great game by the way.

Everyone risks losing it all, all the time. Your arguments hold no water for most of the mac users on this board, because you keep hammering on a point most of us don't care about, and you do it poorly. Learn to argue, man.

 

[reorx]

Its not a #$%^ gaming machine

The PowerMac is not a gaming platform. Period. End of story.

Bringing up all these BS gaming benchmarks for a machine with a fraction of the fraction of the market which supports all the FPS gamers out there is absolutely missing the point. If you want a DirectX gaming machine, there is only one solution that matters: x86/Windows.

The consoles are killing the PC gaming market, so its a dying market anyway.

I think I mentioned it before: All these current machines can generate FPS numbers well above what any LCD monitor can on the planet can sustain, so its absolutely wasted ability. That Alienware machine you buy will be eclipsed by something bigger and faster in less that 6 months anyway. So what happens then?

You can't run a business on playing games faster than your synapses can fire.

 

[Frohickey]

geeeez.... when is this thread gonna die?!!!

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

when Apple release new hardware next tuesday, anyways thatwendigo its not polite to tell someone to shut up so grow up would you, and using a how many year old game for benches like quake 3 is rather mute. I would love someone to post benches from MacWorld & MacAddict but since i dont have it in my computer I cant. Some people still read a thing called magazines. also in 6 months current macs will be eclipsed so what your point reorx?

 

[Ensoniq]

The PowerMac is not a gaming platform. Period. End of story.

...(removed)...

You can't run a business on playing games faster than your synapses can fire.

Reorx ... "you da man!" You said what I've thought a million times but never posted because I didn't want the gaming hoards to freak out.

Ladies and Gentlemen - The Mac is not a super-mega gaming platform, never will be, and was never meant to be. Anyone buying a Dual 2 GHz G5 in order to see how high their Quake FPS scores will be has way too much time AND money on their hands. Get a GameCube or PS2 or XBox for under $200. Or buy a kick-ass PC gaming system for under $2000. (Why anyone would pay 10 times as much as the game console I don't understand though...) Either way, you'll get better performance and more options than you will on a Mac. It's just a fact.

Apple designed the Dual G5 systems for video, animation, music creation, data manipulation, scientific and mathematical calculations, etc. They are amazing machines for their intended purpose. Sure, they can play games well. So can the eMac/iMac/iBook G4 machines. No one needs a $3000-$4000 top of the line PowerMac G5 to play games. They just WANT one.

The obsession with newer graphic cards and game performance that cannot be measured within normal human visual perceptability is just insanity.

STOP THE INSANITY!