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

Itanium 2 and P4, could they beat the G4?

Note about win comps

Just to mention that I used a home-made win comp with a 500 Mhz AMD K62 and some other old crappy hw. The times i got the computer to start up, it couldn't run seti@home without crashing after 25 minutes or so. Of course, it only cost 400 dollars so at least its a lot cheaper than a mac :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Firestormf
Good God, what is wrong with your computers? An Athlon XP taking 21 hours to do a workunit?? Even your G4 numbers look a little high if the G4 scales the same as a G3 when running SETI.
Click to expand...

Those numbers are from SETI's database, taking into account MANY different processors.

If SETI is Altivec aware, then that explains the jump in performance on the G4.

BTW - My results above (18 hours and 20 minutes on the Mac,
20 hours and 45 minutes on the PC) on my personal machines are running the OS X and Windows XP GUI clients. Based on your lower numbers with a slower CPU, it sounds like maybe XP is slowing things down considerably. Hmmmm...
 
Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Those numbers are from SETI's database, taking into account MANY different processors.
Click to expand...

Thus the necessity for a benchmark providing separate info on each CPU.
 
Originally posted by bobindashadows
Thus the necessity for a benchmark providing separate info on each CPU.
Click to expand...

We're definitely going in circles here. :D

If you want to, you can look at the platform numbers to see how the OS performs in general on all the hardware available. Then you can look at the CPU numbers to see how a particular CPU performs.

But, I agree that the SETI benchmark is imperfect as an indicator of overall system performance...but what else do we have right now to compare Macs and PCs?
 
Re: Re: Re: Itanium 2 and P4, could they beat the G4?

Originally posted by gjohns01


I use both OSes. Why is Windows a poor OS? Because you don't know how to use it? Have you used it? I experience no loss in production switching between the two OSes. You can't figure out how to open an application? Can't make the switch between Command+Q and Alt+F4? You should try not to make blanket statements like that. What makes MacOS so superior? I could point you to a few computer users who would try the MacOS and not have a clue. So much for ease of use. Is it easier for you to read an analog clock or a digital one? The OSes do the same thing; it's all a matter of what you're comfortable with.
Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah...

I wouldn't read too much into a Mac vs. PC article listed on mac.com. Numbers be damned. "Real World" performance will show you a P4, Athlon, Xeon, Itanium matches or flat out whips the G4 at any task. It will only get worse as they push ahead with clock speed. Btw, Apple should benchmark more than just Photoshop and they should throw their dual against a Dual Athlon (the never use athlons) or a Dual Xeon (not a single processor machine). Then see how many photoshop filter tests they win. You do realize that Intel will be going from 2ghz to 3ghz in a years time. How superior is that G4 again? Seems to have growing pains. Does the G5 even exist? We are talking Motorola here. They can’t manufacture for s**t.
Click to expand...

wank, wank, wank...
With a little editting, and a whole lot of common sense, that post could ALMOST be worth the electrons it's printed on.

They don't benchmark against AMD's because businesses don't USE AMD's. I know you don't want to believe that, it hurts your little gamer feelings.. but it's the truth. Big mean world out there. Cope.

As for why they don't benchmark against Dual Xeon's, the answer is equally simple. They want to win. That's marketing. It's what real grown-up type companies do. We aren't using Macs because we're stupid... we aren't all innumerate feebs in here... And no amount of muck-raking by a troll such as yourself is likely to change that.

Wanna know the ONE thing that all the dual and quad Xeons and Itaniums in the world CAN'T do, that keeps us from using them? They can't run MacOS. That's really what it boils down to. I don't know why you, and others like you, have so much trouble with that.
 
I would just like to point out that if things keep progressing at the rate they are now, in about 5 years the PC will be able to run Mac OS X in EMULATION faster than the Mac itself will be able to. :)
 
Originally posted by alex_ant
I would just like to point out that if things keep progressing at the rate they are now, in about 5 years the PC will be able to run Mac OS X in EMULATION faster than the Mac itself will be able to. :)
Click to expand...

It has to emulate it at all first. When do you see that happening? ;)
 
Sorry to spoil your fun...let me try again...

WTF!?!? No Intel sucks86 proc will EVER beat a Mac! Tha G4 gots too much gigaflops! The PeeeeeFor don't even got'em at all! Who wants to do emalation anyways? Only lamer PeeCheese users 'cause they want to use Macs but are scared to go buy one and get teased by their stoopid hacker buddies! I got one for you right here: Macs ownz j00!! Emalate that!!!
 
Why isn't there a mac emulator?

Heh alex is right, but actually why hasn't there been a decent powerpc emulator out there? I mean obviously the market of windoze users wanting to use macs is much smaller then the reverse, but honestly i know a number of PC users who would love to use a mac, but they can't afford to just buy one without selling their windoze. And then they wouldn't be able to use their win software w/o paying for vpc5. so why isn't there a mac emu?
 
VPC5

Interesting note on VPC:
Price for VPC5 plus Windows XP Home = $199

Price for Windows XP Home on its own = $199

Suddenly, VPC5 doesn't sound like such a bad deal. :p
 
Re: VPC5

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Interesting note on VPC:
Price for VPC5 plus Windows XP Home = $199

Price for Windows XP Home on its own = $199

Suddenly, VPC5 doesn't sound like such a bad deal. :p
Click to expand...

Lol so we can get a windoze comp + windoze xp for the price that they pay for the OS :D
 
Originally posted by gjohns01
I use both OSes. Why is Windows a poor OS? Because you don't know how to use it? Have you used it? I experience no loss in production switching between the two OSes. You can't figure out how to open an application? Can't make the switch between Command+Q and Alt+F4? You should try not to make blanket statements like that. What makes MacOS so superior? I could point you to a few computer users who would try the MacOS and not have a clue.
Click to expand...

Don't want to burst your bubble, but I do have an A+ cert, and work with PC's on a daily basis at work. Think first before you try to rile up trouble, or go to another site that doesn't like macs.
 
Re: Re: Back to SETI

Originally posted by alex_ant

The megahertz myth is a reality... but only when running AltiVec-enabled software. :)

I wonder what's keeping Intel and AMD from implementing a vector processor into their chips. It doesn't seem like it would be a very tall order, plus Intel certainly has the expertise to write a decent compiler that could auto-vectorize code, unlike whoever is in charge of writing Apple's compiler, which would make said VPU transparent to software developers. Can you imagine what would happen to Apple if Intel implemented PentiVec? A very dark day for Mac users everywhere... I don't even want to think about that.

Alex
Click to expand...

They did. It's called MMX/SSE/SSE2/3dNOW!/Enhanced 3dNOW!/3dNOW! Professional. However, the screwed up on it (it uses the FP pipelines instead of dedicated ones, doesn't have enough registers, doesn't have the spiffy new instructions Altivec does, MMX can pretty much only been done in assembly, and the processor has to switch states to do MMX/SSE instead of FP). Altivec is what MMX/etc... should have been.
 
Re: Re: Re: Back to SETI

Originally posted by Catfish_Man
They did. It's called MMX/SSE/SSE2/3dNOW!/Enhanced 3dNOW!/3dNOW! Professional. However, the screwed up on it (it uses the FP pipelines instead of dedicated ones, doesn't have enough registers, doesn't have the spiffy new instructions Altivec does, MMX can pretty much only been done in assembly, and the processor has to switch states to do MMX/SSE instead of FP). Altivec is what MMX/etc... should have been.
Click to expand...
Well, why can't they just get it right? Does x86 prohibit an AltiVec workalike? You can never have too many marketing buzzwords. Why not add yet another? :)

Alex
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Back to SETI

Originally posted by alex_ant

Well, why can't they just get it right? Does x86 prohibit an AltiVec workalike? You can never have too many marketing buzzwords. Why not add yet another? :)

Alex
Click to expand...

I think it comes down to most people in general don't really understand computers, and while adding some cool names/marketing jargon is ok, 3GHz sells much better. I actually think it is sorta funny, I have always thought mac were a little mot intuitive to use, but in general, the avg C.Q. (computer quotient) amoung mac users is higher than windows. I still think some poeple buy macs because they heard they are easier to start with, but most people who buy them buy them because they actully know the advantages if using 'em.

My $.02...
 
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