More PowerMac G5 Details...

[dosers]

balance sheet.

Apple doesn't have 7 Billion. Apple current liquid assets are around 2.5 billion. There are another almost 4 Billion in marketable securities. Usually money that can be made liquid very fast.
They also have about 3.5 Billion in liabilites however. So, while I think Apple stands quite strong, it's not like they have $7Billion cash to spend today by all means !

Microsoft has about $45 Billion in current assets (plus another 20 in non-current assets). Even that though, is mostly securities, which an investor would expect. Now, note that they spend a lot of money on a generous divident in 2004. They had a lot more money in the bank then.
Point is though, and let's not kid ourselves, Microsoft could buy Apple, and most other companies, before breakfast, if they wanted to.
Microsoft's net income in over 3.5 Billion a quarter....

I don't get why people are so down on them. Apple NEEDS Microsoft. DO I prefer apple and Mac ? Sure! Do I want Apple to succeed? Heck ya. But this is just silly.

There is nothing wrong with a good dual core Intel 8xx chip or AMD. If you don't like Windows, that's fair. I think OS X is much, much better.

I never understood this fanatic rivalry myself. Heck, Sony is as much as monopolistic juggernaut as Microsoft, and no-one complains it seems. Odd.
Say what you want, but I regard Bill Gates as much as visonary as Steve Jobs. Both have their major flaws. Both a basically intellectual thieves Both are to be admired IMHO.

ANd yes, I love Apple. But let's be realistic ;-)

Hmmm. Apple's 7 billion x 20 = 140. So youre saying that m$ has 140 billion. I don't think so. I believe that they are somewhere around 47 or 54 billion at best.

So Apple has approximately 1/7 or 1/8 of the equivalent of m$'s cash reserves. Not bad for a company that was nearly bankrupt in '97 when SJ came back on board and also considering that Mac's [argueably] only have 2.5% marketshare, or 1/38th of m$'s supposed 95% marketshare.

Interesting discrepancy in numbers heh? Looks like m$ should have quite a bit more money [ 7 x 38 = 266 billion] considering the size discrepancy of their "installed" user base vs. ours... and the gap just keeps closing quicker and quicker.



If you buy an x86 box you're a moron who should pay attention to why inHell processors have been kicked out of every next generation gaming console. Plain and simple, PowerPC is a superior architecture to x86.

It'll be funny watching miCrapsoft XSUX players enjoying their PowerPC based consoles.

When Mac's go with dual-core and [hopefully] cell processors, the war will really begin. Keyword of course being "when"...

It'll happen though, and I'll be laughing my a$$ off when it does!

 

[DavidCar]

My thinking is that the less that changes in the presumed upcoming speed bump, the less those changes have to do with the timing of new dual core machines. I would not be surprised to see dual core PowerMacs at WWDC.

 

[uv23]

I don't get why people are so down on them. Apple NEEDS Microsoft. DO I prefer apple and Mac ? Sure! Do I want Apple to succeed? Heck ya. But this is just silly.

There is nothing wrong with a good dual core Intel 8xx chip or AMD. If you don't like Windows, that's fair. I think OS X is much, much better.

I never understood this fanatic rivalry myself. Heck, Sony is as much as monopolistic juggernaut as Microsoft, and no-one complains it seems. Odd.
Say what you want, but I regard Bill Gates as much as visonary as Steve Jobs. Both have their major flaws. Both a basically intellectual thieves Both are to be admired IMHO.

ANd yes, I love Apple. But let's be realistic ;-)

That's about the most refreshing thing I've read on here in months.

 

[JackAxe]

I'm buying an external Blue-Ray when made available and a XServer when they finally go Dual-Core. Now for my current DP 2.5, when the freak will Apple remove the artificial restraints from my Dual-Layer DVD? I could use the 8.5 gig burning option right now and they could've easily included DL support in any of these last OSX updates. I'm thinking Tiger will finally offer support, but if Apple doesn't release a firmware update that takes away their intentional crippling, I'll be forced to flash the drive myself via my PC and void the warranty.

I wouldn't want a Cell proc in my Macintosh. Each core can only handle 2 instructions per cycle, where as a G5 does 5 per core. The cell can also only handle up to 100 requests, where as a G5 can handle up to "200." Also a Cell's VMX unit(Alti-Vec compatible) is nothing compared to the Alit-Vec compatible unit found in a G5 which is a "Double-Precision-Behemouth." And of course each G5 has one of those.

So don't expect Apple to use a Cell proc in future Macs, especially since OSX relies so heavily on Alti-Vec. I don't know about you, but I would rather not "downgrade" to a "weaker" PPC which is best left in a game console or other appliances.

<]=)

 

[Androit]

I'm buying an external Blue-Ray when made available and a XServer when they finally go Dual-Core. Now for my current DP 2.5, when the freak will Apple remove the artificial restraints from my Dual-Layer DVD? I could use the 8.5 gig burning option right now and they could've easily included DL support in any of these last OSX updates. I'm thinking Tiger will finally offer support, but if Apple doesn't release a firmware update that takes away their intentional crippling, I'll be forced to flash the drive myself via my PC and void the warranty.

I wouldn't want a Cell proc in my Macintosh. Each core can only handle 2 instructions per cycle, where as a G5 does 5 per core. The cell can also only handle up to 100 requests, where as a G5 can handle up to "200." Also a Cell's VMX unit(Alti-Vec compatible) is nothing compared to the Alit-Vec compatible unit found in a G5 which is a "Double-Precision-Behemouth." And of course each G5 has one of those.

So don't expect Apple to use a Cell proc in future Macs, especially since OSX relies so heavily on Alti-Vec. I don't know about you, but I would rather not "downgrade" to a "weaker" PPC which is best left in a game console or other appliances.

<]=)

They're not talking about replacing a G5 with a CELL; they're talking about a CELL in addition to a G5 in order to crunch data its good at handling.

 

[HelloKitty]

My feeling is that, should Apple introduce an update with such a small change? I mean, if the update is coming up as TS predicted, shouldn't it be better if Apple delay the update until they have the dual core processor machine ready? What's the purpose of a 0.2Mhz update after 10 months? If it takes another 10 months for the next update (assuming Apple introduces the 0.2Mhz update), then I think Apple is in serious trouble. Moreover, if the 2.5Mhz machines are that powerful as some user said, why rush for an update? I think most of the users are willing to wait.

Besides, there are still two months until WWDC. If Apple introduces 970MP machies at WWDC and start shipping at August or September, this gives them nearly another half an year.

Or, Apple can give "hint" to the users just like they did with the iMac G5. I think this is a good way for them.

I love the PowerMac G5 a lot, and I've been looking forward to buy one. But I think it's quite an expensive piece of equipment too. So I would be very glad if I can make every dollar of my purchase worth more.

 

[calyxman]

What's up with all this talk about Microsoft and their monopoly? Hey guys, get off your soap boxes already! We're talking about Apple and we're talking about what to expect from future PowerMacs.

This whole banter about what constitutes a "monopoly" is a loser and has been dead for a long time. Get over it. Apple is the one on my radar screen. What's their plan?

Amazing how some of you accede to what Steve Jobs thinks is the appropriate hardware to run your favorite OS, let alone pay the crazy premium prices on his products which in turn drives his stock price crazy and makes him a very wealthy man. Heaven forbid we get freedom to choose hardware of our choice to run such a great operating system.

 

[JackAxe]

They're not talking about replacing a G5 with a CELL; they're talking about a CELL in addition to a G5 in order to crunch data its good at handling.

That would be great, the more procs the better. This is what I get for coming in at the tail-end of a discussion.

<]=)

 

[acidreflux]

sfs

1. I'm not talking about legal responsibilty and I assume you aren't either, since you say "From a business standpoint." It seems to me that "from a business standpoint," when you give someone (or several million someones) your personal assurance, you are assuming a kind of responsibility. Jobs basically asked us to trust him: not to trust him that he was not lying, but rather trust him that IBM would deliver. He did not say "maybe," he did not say "IBM has told me." Whether he should have said what he said is another question.

2. Yeah, and Jobs knew that. If Boeing considered development of my helicopter-lawnchair-device to be top priority, I would a millionaire by now.

3. No. See 1. People assume all sorts of responsibility that do not fall in the category of lies. In a typical corporate environment, if someone like Steve Jobs made this kind of commitment to a major client and did not deliver, he would be fired. Not for lying. For making a commitment and not delivering.

I'm not suggesting that Jobs should be fired, just pointing out that he bears responsibility, which seems to be to be painfully obvious.

The article I read said that Jobs said "probably" (the word probably!) about 3ghz. I also said on my original post that to show me up if I was wrong about the quote. Well nobody did, and we are arguing that he promised, and saying "probably" IS NOT a promise.

Well I did some searching and found what seems to be the concensus for what he said: "Within 12 months, we will be at 3GHz," Jobs said.

I would take that quote as a literal commitment. Bad information on my part. I concur with you.

 

[stephenli]

hay steve
where is your "promised" 3.0 ghz PM G5?

 

[JackAxe]

What's up with all this talk about Microsoft and their monopoly? Hey guys, get off your soap boxes already! We're talking about Apple and we're talking about what to expect from future PowerMacs.

This whole banter about what constitutes a "monopoly" is a loser and has been dead for a long time. Get over it. Apple is the one on my radar screen. What's their plan?

Amazing how some of you accede to what Steve Jobs thinks is the appropriate hardware to run your favorite OS, let alone pay the crazy premium prices on his products which in turn drives his stock price crazy and makes him a very wealthy man. Heaven forbid we get freedom to choose hardware of our choice to run such a great operating system.

Premium? Errr a G5 tower is a "workstation," compare its price to a comparable dual proc "true" 64-bit workstation on the PC and you'll see that the G5 is actually a bargain. You'll also need to account for available memory slots and PCI-X. And by stating "true," only the Opteron and Itanium qualify. Well probalby only the Itanium since an Opteron can't address 64-bit memory. But when it comes to accessories and ugprades, then those are definately jacked up in price like most retai computer manufactures.

And we do have a choice. I have a DP 2.5, DP 1.25, 1 Ghz PB(weef does also.) and I can choose any one of them to use my favorite OS on.

I have a few PCs also(XP 3200, MP2800, P4 measily 2Ghz. None of which can hold a candle to my G5), but they are only good for a once a year LAN party, "cheap" rendering solution and tinkering, but that's about it. I'm planning on replacing most of them with a XServe. I enjoy working on my Macs, I maintain my PCs. If anything, the required maintenance on my PCs is a premium.

It was Pixar that made Jobs a very wealthy man BTW.

<]=)

 

[daveL]

What's up with all this talk about Microsoft and their monopoly? Hey guys, get off your soap boxes already! We're talking about Apple and we're talking about what to expect from future PowerMacs.

This whole banter about what constitutes a "monopoly" is a loser and has been dead for a long time. Get over it. Apple is the one on my radar screen. What's their plan?

Amazing how some of you accede to what Steve Jobs thinks is the appropriate hardware to run your favorite OS, let alone pay the crazy premium prices on his products which in turn drives his stock price crazy and makes him a very wealthy man. Heaven forbid we get freedom to choose hardware of our choice to run such a great operating system.

Then it (OS X) wouldn't be such a great OS. If you don't get that, then you have zero understanding of what's going on. Sorry. It's about software/hardware integration (Apple) vs the technical anarchy that Wintel has tried to control and failed. I love these declarations. Guess what? If Apple released OS X on all hardware platforms, OS X would become Wondows. Does that make sense to you? You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Edit: And they're not premium prices. Please don't give me the: "Oh, I can buy components off the net and build a killer PC for $400". Well, you are welcome to said $400 PC; my time is more valuable than dealing with junk that breaks twice a week (either software or hardware).

 

[AidenShaw]

what is your definition of "true 64-bit", if Opteron, and Xeon (EM64T) don't meet it

Premium? Errr a G5 tower is a "workstation," compare its price to a comparable dual proc "true" 64-bit workstation on the PC and you'll see that the G5 is actually a bargain. You'll also need to account for available memory slots and PCI-X. And by stating "true," only the Opteron and Itanium qualify. Well probalby only the Itanium since an Opteron can't address 64-bit memory.

Please explain what you mean - because I'm certainly running my Opterons and Xeons (Nocomas) with 64-bit operating systems (64-bit virtual memory) and have them with up to 48 GiB of RAM.

Please explain what you mean by this statement....

 

[JackAxe]

Please explain what you mean - because I'm certainly running my Opterons and Xeons (Nocomas) with 64-bit operating systems (64-bit virtual memory) and have them with up to 48 GiB of RAM.

Please explain what you mean by this statement....

An Operteron and 64-bit Xeon can only address "40-bit" of physcial memory and "48-bit" of virtual memory. You can put up to 1TB, or 1000 gigs of ram, which is nice, but doesn't come "even" close to "true" 64-bt, which is 16 Exabytes, or 16 billion gigs of RAM. For VM, your chips can support up to 256 TB.

You'll have to explain how yours systems are addressing 64-bit virtual memory, since neithger of those chips support it?

<]=)

 

[LGRW3919]

My feeling is that, should Apple introduce an update with such a small change? I mean, if the update is coming up as TS predicted, shouldn't it be better if Apple delay the update until they have the dual core processor machine ready? What's the purpose of a 0.2Mhz update after 10 months? If it takes another 10 months for the next update (assuming Apple introduces the 0.2Mhz update), then I think Apple is in serious trouble. Moreover, if the 2.5Mhz machines are that powerful as some user said, why rush for an update? I think most of the users are willing to wait.

Besides, there are still two months until WWDC. If Apple introduces 970MP machies at WWDC and start shipping at August or September, this gives them nearly another half an year.

Or, Apple can give "hint" to the users just like they did with the iMac G5. I think this is a good way for them.

I love the PowerMac G5 a lot, and I've been looking forward to buy one. But I think it's quite an expensive piece of equipment too. So I would be very glad if I can make every dollar of my purchase worth more.

you mean .2 Ghz? .2 Mhz would be awful :-D
other than that i pretty much agree.

 

[calyxman]

Then it (OS X) wouldn't be such a great OS. If you don't get that, then you have zero understanding of what's going on. Sorry. It's about software/hardware integration (Apple) vs the technical anarchy that Wintel has tried to control and failed. I love these declarations. Guess what? If Apple released OS X on all hardware platforms, OS X would become Wondows. Does that make sense to you? You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
.

What the hell are you talking about? That is the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard from a mac user. So, in other words OS X isn't great alone, you have to take the hardware included? And if our buddy Steve let's us pick and choose our hardware configurations we've turned OS X upside down?? Maybe in the old days when Macs were the most esoteric and complex systems designed on the market could you make the case about integrating the hardware and software closely. But that ain't the case today. Most of the hardware used in today's systems are similar if not identical to what we see on PCs. And we're not simply stuck to using the "proprietary" hardware, nor are we risking any qualities from OS X if we use different hardware. We see examples of how iDVD is compatible with aftermarket DVD burners like the ones from Lacie. After a few updates with iTunes I was able to recognize my external CD burner when I wanted to create music CDs. You're way off the wall on your statement.

I mean, you admit by your very statement that OS X would become Windows not because of lousy coding, security flaws, or convoluted file management for programs, but because it will work on any machine. So in other words, forget the intuitive GUI, forget the great memory management and mutlitasking, it stinks because it will work on any machine. Huh?? OS X is built on UNIX, and UNIX is a great OS. However Unix is not a low level OS; it's possible to run it on an x86 machine. Does that make unix suck? If does, then I guess OS X sucks too by your very reasoning, right?

Macs are not built on mars, they're built in China just like every Toshiba, HP, IBM, and any other PC system.

Edit: And they're not premium prices. Please don't give me the: "Oh, I can buy components off the net and build a killer PC for $400". Well, you are welcome to said $400 PC; my time is more valuable than dealing with junk that breaks twice a week (either software or hardware)

[/quote]

Piece of junk? I've built machines that have lasted solid for years. Seems like more of insecurity on your part because you can't stand the fact that an ugly box with some kick ass hardware would whoop the snot out of your titanium work of art.

And the prices are high. What's the most affordable price for a new 15" laptop that runs OS X? A whopping $2000. What's included? A sucky display, a processor being dragged to death rather than EOL'd, lackluster graphics hardware and memory. Should I go back to the days of faulty hinges, chipping paint, and frying eggs on your notebook from the all the heat generated?

What's an alternative to the 15" powerbook? The 14" iBook. Similar specs, except Steve at Apple doesn't want consumers to hurt their eyes with high screen resolutions, so he decided we should max out at 1024x768 on the 14" screen. And it costs you $1500. What kind of nonsense is that? This is a glaring example where our choices of system--namely in the notebook line--flat out positively SUCK. Why is it the most affordable options is a 12" screen? I don't understand what's this total fascination with a 12" screen, when some of us here need a little bit more space to do our work and can't stand straining our eyes on such a tiny screen.

The only line in which I could see value is in the iMacs. That's about it.

 

[Mav451]

An Operteron and 64-bit Xeon can only address "40-bit" of physcial memory and "48-bit" of virtual memory. You can put up to 1TB, or 1000 gigs of ram, which is nice, but doesn't come "even" close to "true" 64-bt, which is 16 Exabytes, or 16 billion gigs of RAM. For VM, your chips can support up to 256 TB.

You'll have to explain how yours systems are addressing 64-bit virtual memory, since neithger of those chips support it?

<]=)

First Anthlon, and now the Operteron.

Hardly what I would call accidental "slips" on the keyboard.

 

[FlyNolJ]

So, nothing today, what about tomorrow???

If they don't come out with anything tomorrow during their special "little" confrence then I really hope that Thinksecret is blowing s*** out of their cornhole and Apple releases Dual-Core during WWDC. I think that is the most probable anyway. Apple is a little behind the hardware game and if they just bumped up the speed a little bit then throughout the next 10 months they would be way behind. I hate to say it, but it's true. Ok, just PCI-e. How hard is it?? Someone please tell me, how hard is it to put one PCI-e slot in a PM G5???

 

[crpchristian]

remember macworld

When the Sony Pres spoke (they made it seem like some last minute thing to have him there...hmmm..riiiight). And then at the end, right after he walks off.. Jobs says something like "and of course apple and sony have always had a close relationship with video adn with these great camcorders..and who knows maybe music and computers some day too"

Now...would he JUST say that to say it. They both were using that time to Jive about the Year of HD too....Sony has alwasy made cameras, apple has been doing video for a while now...so why this on stage buddy moment all of a sudden...cells are already being produced....hmmm...it all makes a kid wonder...

AND DEMAND CELL INFUSED POWERMAC WORKSTATIONS BY WWDC

 

[BenRoethig]

If they don't come out with anything tomorrow during their special "little" confrence then I really hope that Thinksecret is blowing s*** out of their cornhole and Apple releases Dual-Core during WWDC. I think that is the most probable anyway. Apple is a little behind the hardware game and if they just bumped up the speed a little bit then throughout the next 10 months they would be way behind. I hate to say it, but it's true. Ok, just PCI-e. How hard is it?? Someone please tell me, how hard is it to put one PCI-e slot in a PM G5???

Apple would need a completely new north and southbridge combo for PCI-e.

 

[edgarj]

No PCIe? So what

There is NO real advantage to PCIe now or in the near future, even for games. Apple just sees that, with the exception of upgrading gfx cards in years to come, PCIe is a marketing point at most for now and revising the slot at this point would just force ATI and nVidia to produce another stock of cards for the already small Apple market. I feel the same way about this as I do about PCIx... everybody wanted it because it was faster, but very few people have even purchaced a PCIx card for their G5. Comforted by the option, but with no clue what to do with it.

Dual-core chips would have been HUGE, but I'm not at all upset about the lack of PCIe, or PCIx 2.0. If they had included it, everybody would be wanting SLI.

 

[AidenShaw]

Oh, that pedantic position

An Operteron and 64-bit Xeon can only address "40-bit" of physcial memory and "48-bit" of virtual memory. You can put up to 1TB, or 1000 gigs of ram, which is nice, but doesn't come "even" close to "true" 64-bt, which is 16 Exabytes, or 16 billion gigs of RAM. For VM, your chips can support up to 256 TB.

You'll have to explain how yours systems are addressing 64-bit virtual memory, since neithger of those chips support it?

<]=)

And PPC970 is 42-bits physical, and Itanium is 44-bits physical....

And don't believe that any *current* implementation of 64-bit operating systems allow 16 exabytes of VM -- there's always an "implementation limit" somewhere below that. (Which is fine, if only because you couldn't connect a 16 exabyte pagefile to the system!)

64-bit Windows support 16 TiB (44-bits) of virtual memory per process, a decent amount. I haven't found the actual implementation limit for OSX 10.4 - just the 16 EiB marketing number. Any ADC members know the actual limit in 10.4?

One definition of "64-bit virtual addressing" that I believe is very appropriate is that the system must support 64-bit pointers, and check that all 64-bits are valid - even if fewer than 16 exabyte different values are permitted by the particular hardware and software implementation.

Consider that the G5 only supports 33-bits of RAM (although there are many reports that 34-bits work fine if you get the bigger DIMMs).

There's no value (and there's significant cost) to support more memory (physical or virtual) than is likely to be needed during the lifetime of an implementation. The Opterons and Xeons probably have a life span of 2 years or so - will we need more than 1 TiB of physical RAM in that timeframe. Probably not, and if we do the good people at Intel and AMD will do a mod to add a couple more bits to tide us through.

That's what's important about a 64-bit architecture - any given hardware or software implementation can have limits. The programs, however, will continue to work as new implementations support higher limits.

 

[JackAxe]

First Anthlon, and now the Operteron.

Hardly what I would call accidental "slips" on the keyboard.

WTF are you talking about???

<]=)

And PPC970 is 42-bits physical, and Itanium is 44-bits physical....

And don't believe that any *current* implementation of 64-bit operating systems allow 16 exabytes of VM -- there's always an "implementation limit" somewhere below that. (Which is fine, if only because you couldn't connect a 16 exabyte pagefile to the system!)

64-bit Windows support 16 TiB (44-bits) of virtual memory per process, a decent amount. I haven't found the actual implementation limit for OSX 10.4 - just the 16 EiB marketing number. Any ADC members know the actual limit in 10.4?

One definition of "64-bit virtual addressing" that I believe is very appropriate is that the system must support 64-bit pointers, and check that all 64-bits are valid - even if fewer than 16 exabyte different values are permitted by the particular hardware and software implementation.

Consider that the G5 only supports 33-bits of RAM (although there are many reports that 34-bits work fine if you get the bigger DIMMs).

There's no value (and there's significant cost) to support more memory (physical or virtual) than is likely to be needed during the lifetime of an implementation. The Opterons and Xeons probably have a life span of 2 years or so - will we need more than 1 TiB of physical RAM in that timeframe. Probably not, and if we do the good people at Intel and AMD will do a mod to add a couple more bits to tide us through.

That's what's important about a 64-bit architecture - any given hardware or software implementation can have limits. The programs, however, will continue to work as new implementations support higher limits.

Well put and consumed. 42-bits physical, but 64-bit VM for the 970. 10.4 supports the full 64-bit virtual address range. I'm an ADC member, but only for the hardware discount.

<]=)

 

[le_coc]

Marketing reasons to update!

How big is the chance that Apple won't come out with anything today? I mean how long can they wait untill people start really complaining?! If we are allready complainting that Apple isn't releasing anything; the press will start soon aswell ant that isn't a good thing!

Another thing is; they will see in their sales figures that lots of mac user are just waiting for the macs being updated. So to start selling again they need to do at least something; even a minor speedbumb is well for sales figures.

Something else I realized that last couple of days is there are a group of people who say a minor speedbump isn't worth updating; I think it is!
Cause lost of people like me just want to have the latest revision of a mac just to have it! Another reason the announce an update TODAY! (and they will!)

 

[Evangelion]

You just completely skipped over his post, didn't you. He was pointing out that the benchmarks were not an accurate measurement, because due to the more powerful processor itself the scores of the x86 will be higher, but due to the more efficient design of the PowerPC it is vastly better at multitasking and has no bandiwidth problems.

Individual benchmarks don't take bandiwidth into account.

What "bandwidth problems" are you referring to here? Athlon64 and Opteron have MORE bandwidth at their disposal than G5 does! Hell, SMP-Opterons have simply insane amounts of memory-bandwidth available! 2x Opterons has twice as much memory-bandwidth than 2x G5's do! And they have alot lower latencies. And they have twice as much L2-cache, and 4 times as much L1-cache.

You keep on saying how "PowerPC has no bandwidth-problems". Well, G4 is a PowerPC-CPU, and it has a 166MHz bus. According to you, it doesn't have any bandwidth-problems? Do you seriously claim that? Do I have to take out my cluebat?

The fact that does certain CPU suffer from lack of bandwidth has nithing to do whether it's a PowerPC-CPU or not. There are PowerPC-CPU that have serious problems with bandwdith (G4), and there are PowerPC-CPU's that have no problems with bandwidth (G5). It all boils down to the way the CPU and the system is designed. And on x86-side of things, Xeon does have some problems with bandwidth (since the CPU's share the bus), but Athlon64/Opteron sure as hell have no bandwidth-problems!

Related to this: Did you know that G5 uses HyperTransport-bus in connecting the CPU to the northbridge? HyperTransport is designed by AMD for their Athlon64/Opteron-CPU's.

And benchmarks do take bandwidth in to account. If some benchmarks needs lots of bandwidth, systems with less bandwidth will have poorer results than those systems which have more bandwidth available. But if the benchmarks doesn't rely on bandwidth, then it doesn't really show in the results either.

And what is this "more efficient design of PowerPC" than supposedly helps in multitasking about? Care to point out any examples? You could say that multithreading in Intel-chips helps quite alot in multitasking (not as much as true SMP, but still), and PowerPC doesn't have that.