Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
Not open for further replies.
p:ro said:
No Insult :cool: - but:

http://www.barefeats.com/imcd.html

http://www.barefeats.com/imcd2.html

Don't try to trash the G5 as long as they are fighting back - hmm rip Intel iMacs into pieces :eek:

Uhmm, how does http://www.barefeats.com/imcd.html rip Intel iMacs to pieces? The Intel iMac wins in 5/6 tests of Universal Binaries (only losing once to a PowerMac and by a slim margin), and it beats G5 iMacs in 100% of those tests.

Sounds like someone is bitter about buying a 2.1Ghz iMac G5.
 
p:ro said:
Let's fight Intel - we will wait for Intel PowerMac a while

This statement makes no sense. One, what are you fighting? Apple made the switch, deal with it. Two, you are going to fight now but bend over later? Wow, what strong convictions you have.
 
johnnybluejeans said:
Sounds like someone is bitter about buying a 2.1Ghz iMac G5.

I thought my post was crystal for everyone. I got more precise just for you - hope you glad now :cool:

Posts like yours are really useless - I didn't try to bite at all ... read carefully & think logically. :cool: Most Professional Software will not be avaiable for a while. Not talking about the Universal stuff like iMovie, Safari etc.

2 your second post: that was sarcasm - PowerMac will do a great professional job for year no need for a Intel PowerMac hype - that's all. I'm not a biter and no hater for sure.

You're cute =.=
 
p:ro said:
I thought my post was crystal for everyone. I got more precise just for you - hope you glad now :cool:

Posts like yours are really useless - I didn't try to bite at all ... read carefully & think logically. :cool:

1) you are fighting against the tide. no matter how much you want G4's and G5's to stay around, they just aren't.

2) the G5 is close to the performance of intel/amd's offerings, and when it does win, it it barely wins and then only with multiple cores. Single G5 <<<< Single Athlon 64.

Think about it. the G5 is close in performance. it was nice to have a level playing field after being stuck in G4 land for so long. you aren't losing anything by getting a faster processor, except being able to say that you have a unique processor. some people actually want higher performance.
 
i'm really lauging my ass off about you too cuties =.=

I don't care what chip is inside - I want a good system. This is really getting funny - why you guys allways trying to detect biters & haters ? :cool: I never talked about single Core G5 and G4 anyway - what's wrong with you guys...

Maybe you guys miss the big picture - not sure anymore
 
p:ro said:
i'm really lauging my ass off about you too cuties =.=

I don't care what chip is inside - I want a good system. This is really getting funny - why you guys allways trying to detect biters & haters ? :cool: I never talked about single Core G5 and G4 anyway - what's wrong with you guys...

Maybe you guys miss the big picture - not sure anymore

So what point are you trying to make? What is this ''bigger picture'' of which you speak
 
Open your eyes

AJBMatrix said:
Mac Pro 4X...Sounds Sexy!

But yes it will be faster considering that the 20" Intel iMac is almost as fast as the Quad. And is faster than the current low end PowerMac!


p:ro said:
No Insult :cool: - but:

http://www.barefeats.com/imcd.html

http://www.barefeats.com/imcd2.html

Don't try to trash the PowerMac G5 as long as they are fighting back - hmm rip Intel iMacs into pieces :eek:

I don't want to insult you it's not your mistake that you don't get why i posted the Benchmarks - BUT "Go back to an AOL chatroom" :eek:

hang on mate!

is it my mistake that you can't read messages and link their history/text together - people like you make me sick - take that personal!
You wasting time dude... so stop the childish bitching&crying

I love you desperate hater hunters - kind of cute :cool:

PS: is this a bunch of Intel iMac owners hating the PowerMac G5's ? lol what a ridiculous fantasy - shame on me.. Read post & benchmarks carefully befor your cocky missinterpretations lead to forum spam like this again!
 
What is the point you're trying to make P:RO?

Are you saying the Quad is better than the Core Duo iMacs - Well, thats a shock they are so far out of each others price range its crazy. The quad is an awesome machine. The intel powermacs will be better though, faster and better system wide
 
BakedBeans said:
What is the point you're trying to make P:RO?

Are you saying the Quad is better than the Core Duo iMacs - Well, thats a shock they are so far out of each others price range its crazy. The quad is an awesome machine. The intel powermacs will be better though, faster and better system wide


The Intel Powermacs will be better because they have to be better and will be newer. It is like saying todays Powerbook G4's are better then the Powerbooks G3's of the late nineties. You could use the same logic and say that a computer with a new POWER 6 or next gen Opteron chip at its heart will paste an Intel machine. All likely true but there is a big difference between available technology and practical applied technology. G5 development essentially stopped last year, if in 12 months with millions of dollars and a whole PC industry waiting for them Intel cannot make a chip that overall is better than the current IBM offering it is a poor do. The rate ATI an NVIDIA are going we will have vastly superior chipsets every few months it is technolgies such as storage that need to catch up along with software optimisation other wise all the power is just wasted.
 
When I was talking about the speed of the processor I was talking about the processor by itself if there were no difference in the hardware that each processor used (lets say someone under-clocked the core duo,its ram,bus and turned off one of the processors) and they had a test between the two using only Raw data like...calculating pi to the 3 hundred thousandth digit. (so far I think we have like 30 million digits in pi and NO disernable pattern yet.)I don't care about all you people's OH IT HAS TO BE DONE IN FLOPS but it doesn't becuase the processor does spit out data at a certian interval its called a cycle what I was trying to do is find out how much data it spits out each cycle not caring about the data After it leaves the processor just a test of raw computational abilities. everyone on here clearly shares the setiment of "I don't care if its a piece of crap processor as long as its faster" thats like saying I don't care if its a windows based OS as long as it doesn't crash, get spyware etc...I remember a time where you couldn't udder the words intel and faster without getting flammed for decades. hell, I remember a time when IBM was evil. some say the intel thing is like IBM, its not at all IBM was like dell/gateway/alienware etc... they desinged their cases and bought various third party comptuer parts and shoved it in there. until they stopped and helped Apple in designing the G3, Apple has from the beginning designed all their processors in conjunction with another company that manufactures them for Apple. That is until Intel which gave us a LAPTOP processor to put into our mac's because it was faster than their desktop processor what crappy design team came up with a processor that for every cycle of data ther would be FIFTEEN idle cycles of no data? If apple chose AMD or (better yet) the Cell Processor I wouldn't complain or bitch or **** like that I would be like FINALLY Apple has gotten rid of the G5 and is ready to smoke intel with their new AMD's.


Speaking of the G5, I predict there will be a quad-core Intel processor clocked at 3Ghz introduced by the end of the year. (preferably not the M)
 
shyataroo said:
What kind of moronic post was that? it had nothing to do with the subject or even something relating to computers in general if there is a town missing an idiot it must be yours as only a idiot would make such a post.

When I was talking about the speed of the processor I was talking about the processor by itself if there were no difference in the hardware that each processor used (lets say someone under-clocked the core duo,its ram,bus and turned off one of the processors) and they had a test between the two using only Raw data like...calculating pi to the 3 hundred thousandth digit. (so far I think we have like 30 million digits in pi and NO disernable pattern yet.)I don't care about all you people's OH IT HAS TO BE DONE IN FLOPS but it doesn't becuase the processor does spit out data at a certian interval its called a cycle what I was trying to do is find out how much data it spits out each cycle not caring about the data After it leaves the processor just a test of raw computational abilities. everyone on here clearly shares the setiment of "I don't care if its a piece of crap processor as long as its faster" thats like saying I don't care if its a windows based OS as long as it doesn't crash, get spyware etc...I remember a time where you couldn't udder the words intel and faster without getting flammed for decades. hell, I remember a time when IBM was evil. some say the intel thing is like IBM, its not at all IBM was like dell/gateway/alienware etc... they desinged their cases and bought various third party comptuer parts and shoved it in there. until they stopped and helped Apple in designing the G3, Apple has from the beginning designed all their processors in conjunction with another company that manufactures them for Apple. That is until Intel which gave us a LAPTOP processor to put into our mac's because it was faster than their desktop processor what crappy design team came up with a processor that for every cycle of data ther would be FIFTEEN idle cycles of no data? If apple chose AMD or (better yet) the Cell Processor I wouldn't complain or bitch or **** like that I would be like FINALLY Apple has gotten rid of the G5 and is ready to smoke intel with their new AMD's.


Speaking of the G5, I predict there will be a quad-core Intel processor clocked at 3Ghz introduced by the end of the year. (preferably not the M)

Dude, if you're going to keep spitting out nonsensical drivel, at least use a spell check. PROCESSING POWER CAN'T BE MEASURED BY DATA BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SHOW THE NUMBER OF OPERATIONS PERFORMED ON THE DATA. Just let this thread die. You're only making a fool of yourself.
 
shyataroo said:
at least someone here has the abiltiy to see what I was trying to say, congradulations sir, you have my respect.

The problem is theory and real life don't always match up. Until we get identical hardware like you want there is no way to give a definate answer to your question.

However i do concede one point. If the G4 and G5 had as much money thrown at them as Intel have thrown at the pentium i have no doubt that they would be better and faster. However that is not the case and Intel have better chips right now and will do for the foreseeable future.

Although where in gods name did you get the 15 cycles of no data information?
 
wow, i have seldom seen a thread being screwed up so fast. it started as a nice theoretical discussion idea about the hypothetical performance of a G4.

but instead of discussing shyataroo questions he immediately was told to not care about what processor is in his machine. and that he's basically not allowed to speculate what the G4 could have become.

p:ro seem to understand shyataroo point but his language and behavior is unfortunately off the chart.

well, i had hoped to learn about processor architectures, hear some rumors, talk about a good chip thats time is over. you know all that geek stuff....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.