New barefeats article proves G4s sometimes faster, sometimes slower than AMD/Pentiums


TheT

macrumors 6502
Jan 5, 2002
485
0
Germany
Re: New barefeats article proves G4s sometimes faster, sometimes slower than AMD/Pent

Originally posted by gopher

As I've always said, it is in the software!
But Macs look better than most PCs :D
 

Backtothemac

macrumors 601
Jan 3, 2002
4,206
0
San Destin Florida
These test that this guy puts up are crap! The Athlon is overclocked to be a 2100+, none of the systems have the most current OS. I personally have seen great variations in his tests over the years, and personally, I don't buy it. Why test for single processor functions? The Dual is a DUAL! All of the major Apps are dual aware, as is the OS!

Try that with XP Home.
 

TheT

macrumors 6502
Jan 5, 2002
485
0
Germany
I think Mac users just live in their happy little world and think their computers are still the best... well, wake up!
As of now, PCs kick every Mac's ass, they are just simply faster! Mhz may not matter that much, but a 2Ghz DP compared to a 1.25Ghz DP has to be faster, if you configure it right.
The reason I use a mac is the software, no Windows can beat OSX! And, as a matter of fact, my mac looks better than any of the pcs my friends have...
 

Backtothemac

macrumors 601
Jan 3, 2002
4,206
0
San Destin Florida
Originally posted by TheT
I think Mac users just live in their happy little world and think their computers are still the best... well, wake up!
As of now, PCs kick every Mac's ass, they are just simply faster! Mhz may not matter that much, but a 2Ghz DP compared to a 1.25Ghz DP has to be faster, if you configure it right.
The reason I use a mac is the software, no Windows can beat OSX! And, as a matter of fact, my mac looks better than any of the pcs my friends have...
Um, no. You are wrong. Just because the Intel machine is 2GHZ doesn't mean squat. Pipelines, stages, all of this matters. Don't assume anything about the quality of a 25 year old architecture. X86 blows crap, and always will.
 

mr evil brkfast

macrumors member
Jun 18, 2002
62
0
Toronto, Canada
I think it is pretty sad when the comparisons are not between the best of the best of each manufacturer and Apple still looses with the top of the line.

I dunno what AMD's best is but to see how close/ or far behind Apple is the comparison should at least include a 2.5-2.8 ghz pentium 4.
 

ddtlm

macrumors 65816
Aug 20, 2001
1,184
0
I'd be more impressed with these "tests" if the pro-Mac cowards had used a top-of-the-line Athlon system (1.8ghz is available for duals, 2.13ghz is pretty much available for singles) or a top-of-the-line P4 (2.0ghz? haha!). The 2.0ghz P4 runs on the old 400mhz FSB whereas there is a 533mhz FSB P4 clocking at 2.8ghz available. They also make no mention of memory type used on any platform. For the P4, PC1066 RDRAM is tops, for the Athlon the new nForce2 with 2 channels of 333mhz DDR is tops (although I will admit that chipset still has a one-month ETA). OK, so maybe use the VIA KT400 for the Athlon, it's pretty good.

And what's his quote about a dual Xeon 2200 probably being top dog? Other than the fact you can get Xeons at 2.8ghz as well...

Anyway I think these tests are crap. But they will suffice so that "Macs are fastest!" freakos can keep them in mind and make vauge statements about how Macs and PCs are about the same speed in "tests". (Those people annoy me.)
 

ddtlm

macrumors 65816
Aug 20, 2001
1,184
0
Backtothemac:

Um, no. You are wrong. Just because the Intel machine is 2GHZ doesn't mean squat. Pipelines, stages, all of this matters. Don't assume anything about the quality of a 25 year old architecture. X86 blows crap, and always will.
Does it annoy you to know that even in Photoshop (gasp!) those 25-year old ISA x86 machines kick the snot out of the latest and greatest Mac? Sure seems to.

2.8ghz, by the way.
 

gopher

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Mar 31, 2002
1,474
0
Maryland, USA
Originally posted by Backtothemac
These test that this guy puts up are crap! The Athlon is overclocked to be a 2100+, none of the systems have the most current OS. I personally have seen great variations in his tests over the years, and personally, I don't buy it. Why test for single processor functions? The Dual is a DUAL! All of the major Apps are dual aware, as is the OS!

Try that with XP Home.
Well so can the G4 be overclocked. So what's your point? Big whoop, overclock all you like, but we are talking about systems sold by manufacturers. To learn more about overclocking Macs, visit http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/
 

cr2sh

macrumors 68030
May 28, 2002
2,554
1
downtown
I thought we decided to ignore everything that barefeats has to say? They are not a reputable source at all, their tests are flawed and they have little metadata at all.... why even bother?
 

PCUser

macrumors regular
Mar 1, 2002
123
0
Originally posted by gopher


Well so can the G4 be overclocked. So what's your point? Big whoop, overclock all you like, but we are talking about systems sold by manufacturers. To learn more about overclocking Macs, visit http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/
No, no, the Athlon in the test was overclockled. That Athlon would not be sold by system manufacturers overclocked that far.


Added: The guy who ran this test even states that a dual 1GHz G4 rig is equal to 2GHz, which it isn't.

On the graphics test, he doesn't even give the Athlon and P4 the same graphics card. That's a very innacurate testing site, IMO.
 

Backtothemac

macrumors 601
Jan 3, 2002
4,206
0
San Destin Florida
Originally posted by ddtlm
Backtothemac:


Does it annoy you to know that even in Photoshop (gasp!) those 25-year old ISA x86 machines kick the snot out of the latest and greatest Mac? Sure seems to.

2.8ghz, by the way.
Um,
Don't know what chart you were looking at, but with both processors being used, the 1.25 kicked the "snot" out of the PC's.
 

MrMacMan

macrumors 604
Jul 4, 2001
7,002
11
1 Block away from NYC.
Just one little statement.
They Overclocked to make the Althon Faster, so why not the mac. They could make their mac 'Closer' to the 2 GHZ mark, just by a little. And anyways not every program is going to take the 2ed processor and use it fully.
1 (1 ghz processor) *2 does not equal to 2 GHZ.
 

ddtlm

macrumors 65816
Aug 20, 2001
1,184
0
Backtothemac:

Um, Don't know what chart you were looking at, but with both processors being used, the 1.25 kicked the "snot" out of the PC's.
Ohhh, you mean that one test where the Mac beat an old dual Athlon by, look, 2 points? 38/40 hardly matters, especially seeing as how Athlon MP's are available at 1.8ghz rather than the 1.6ghz tested. Xeons are available at up to 2.8ghz if you want a real top of the line SMP PC. How do you suppose the dual 1.25 would do against that sort of competition?
 

ddtlm

macrumors 65816
Aug 20, 2001
1,184
0
MrMacman:

Perhaps you missed it the first few times around, but Athlons are available at speeds of 2400+ (2.0ghz) and there are even a few 2600+ (2.13ghz) models out there. Why does it matter if they overclocked an old Athlon to 1.6ghz? Tell you what, to make it fair why don't we add in my overclocked dual 800?
 

Backtothemac

macrumors 601
Jan 3, 2002
4,206
0
San Destin Florida
Originally posted by ddtlm
MrMacman:

Perhaps you missed it the first few times around, but Athlons are available at speeds of 2400+ (2.0ghz) and there are even a few 2600+ (2.13ghz) models out there. Why does it matter if they overclocked an old Athlon to 1.6ghz? Tell you what, to make it fair why don't we add in my overclocked dual 800?
Jesus you still don't get it. If you compare Apples to Apples, the 1.6GHZ Dual Athlon is still slower in apps that are multi processor aware. Now, how about the PIV? How does that stack up? The x86 is garbage. Any real IT director would know that.

The point that I was making was that the testing was flawed.

And pc's suck.
 

ddtlm

macrumors 65816
Aug 20, 2001
1,184
0
Backtothemac:

Jesus you still don't get it. If you compare Apples to Apples, the 1.6GHZ Dual Athlon is still slower in apps that are multi processor aware. Now, how about the PIV? How does that stack up? The x86 is garbage. Any real IT director would know that.
No, I "get it" fine. Don't bother testing a 1.6ghz dual Athlon when 1.8ghz dual Athlons are readily available. It would do you good to note that this test did not cover all "apps that are multi processor aware", it covered only two apps that are multi-processor aware, and on one of them the Mac looses by a lot. Even on its one win, the dual 1.25 G4 would still loose to a top-of-the-line dual Athlon. Which is slower than a top-of-the-line dual Xeon. Get it?
 

barkmonster

macrumors 68020
Dec 3, 2001
2,122
12
Lancashire
They'll be a more stressful benchmark coming soon

I emailed this to rob-art morgan on Saturday :

I know the test was to find out how similarly clocked G4, Athlon and Pentium 4 chips perform but I was wondering if it was possible for you to test against the 2 fastest Intel and AMD chips ?

The price of both a 2Ghz Pentium 4 and 1.6Ghz Athlon PC put's it in the same range as the entry level eMac and that's assuming the PC is built using high quality drives and components. This is true for the UK at least.

I'd suggest the following systems, I don't know the details of motherboards or specific RAM configurations but going off cpu speed and the fastest availble RAM for the systems these 3 configurations would make for a fair "high end mac" vs "high end PC" comparison :

Dual 1.25Ghz, stock HD, stock graphics card, 1Gb of 333Mhz DDR SDRAM, OS 10.2.1

Athlon XP 2200+, 7200 rpm HD, same video card as the mac, 1Gb of 333Mhz DDR SDRAM, Windows XP Professional

2.8Ghz Pentium 4, 7200 rpm HD, same video card as the mac, 1Gb of 533Mhz RDRAM, Windows XP Professional
He responded with this :

That's a great suggestion. I'll try to get that arranged.

In the mean time, I'm working on a Pentium 4 2.53MHz + GeForce4 Ti 4600 versus G4 1.25GHz *2 + GeForce4 Ti (4600) comparo.
I can just see the look of disappointment on everyone's faces when the dual 1.25Ghz mac is slapped silly by both windows systems at practically everything.

Call me a pesimist but concidering how it's scrapped by when compared with lower end cpus I can see a thorough G4 thrashing coming up on barefeats very soon.
 

samdweck

macrumors regular
Sep 12, 2002
198
0
1 Infinite Loop
Originally posted by ddtlm
Backtothemac:


Ohhh, you mean that one test where the Mac beat an old dual Athlon by, look, 2 points? 38/40 hardly matters, especially seeing as how Athlon MP's are available at 1.8ghz rather than the 1.6ghz tested. Xeons are available at up to 2.8ghz if you want a real top of the line SMP PC. How do you suppose the dual 1.25 would do against that sort of competition?
all pcs are is snot... he is right.. now leave... cease and desist you s.o.b. PROPAGANDA STARTED THE HOLOCAUST, AND YOU ARE GIVING PROPOGANDA... arn this is a personal attack and is totally fair... let me speak my peace!
 

alex_ant

macrumors 68020
Feb 5, 2002
2,473
0
All up in your bidness
Re: They'll be a more stressful benchmark coming soon

Originally posted by barkmonster
I can just see the look of disappointment on everyone's faces when the dual 1.25Ghz mac is slapped silly by both windows systems at practically everything.
Won't happen. To a Mac zealot, if the G4 is slower than anything, either 1) the benchmark was rigged, or 2) "pcheese" and "Windblowz" suck anyway.

The Pentium 5 could come along and deliver 15,000 in SPECfp and all the Mac zealots would be whining about how SPEC isn't a real-world benchmark and how Macs deliver such better real-world performance etc., even when they have nothing to substantiate their claims but the biased and selective evidence from themselves and their Mac-using friends.

I love Macs, but I harbor no illusions about them not generally being just about the slowest thing on the block at the moment.

Alex
 

samdweck

macrumors regular
Sep 12, 2002
198
0
1 Infinite Loop
Re: Re: They'll be a more stressful benchmark coming soon

Originally posted by alex_ant

Won't happen. To a Mac zealot, if the G4 is slower than anything, either 1) the benchmark was rigged, or 2) "pcheese" and "Windblowz" suck anyway.

The Pentium 5 could come along and deliver 15,000 in SPECfp and all the Mac zealots would be whining about how SPEC isn't a real-world benchmark and how Macs deliver such better real-world performance etc., even when they have nothing to substantiate their claims but the biased and selective evidence from themselves and their Mac-using friends.

I love Macs, but I harbor no illusions about them not generally being just about the slowest thing on the block at the moment.

Alex
mac rules, pc sucks, how hard is this? if you dont' agree, why are you on a site devoted to macs? leave now!!!!!!! (not u alex... lol)