i would like to see these two machine benchmarked while both running Gentoo Linux which is cross platform WITH optimizations for both. that would be the benchmark I would even partially believe.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Pentium 4 vs Athlon 64 vs G5 Benchmarked
- Thread starter straphound
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
since when is microsoft word on osx a proper benchmark? also keep in mind that the higher scoring athlon machines had graphics cards with twice as much memory. i don't doubt that the athlons are faster in many cases, amd makes good processors, but these marks are a bit skewed (the headline on slashdot says that the athlon "trounces" the g5).
does anybody remember that commercial for the toyota tundra truck a few years ago? they raced a tundra and a lotus. for the first 3 seconds it was in favor of the lotus, as it's obviously faster on flat land. but then, the course turns into steep hills and off-road conditions and magically, the tundra wins. if you have 2 inches of ground clearance, a muddy hill is not going to give you a fair representation of what your car can do. likewise, using ported and discontinued software on seperate operating systems to judge the performance of a processor is just sloppy reporting.
load gentoo on to both machines and run some benchmarks that way.
does anybody remember that commercial for the toyota tundra truck a few years ago? they raced a tundra and a lotus. for the first 3 seconds it was in favor of the lotus, as it's obviously faster on flat land. but then, the course turns into steep hills and off-road conditions and magically, the tundra wins. if you have 2 inches of ground clearance, a muddy hill is not going to give you a fair representation of what your car can do. likewise, using ported and discontinued software on seperate operating systems to judge the performance of a processor is just sloppy reporting.
load gentoo on to both machines and run some benchmarks that way.
Oh my God
This has like completely ruined my life, I am so demoralized.
Whatever...
This is the start of a whole new Propaganda War and in the PC world Apple is Goldstein, driving people to hysterics. Let the Two Minutes Hate begin.
The only thing that bothers me is how the high end PCs tested are ones that hardly anyone would ever buy but are able to cast a halo effect on all the Compaqs, Dells, and Gateways out there.
I actually know people who own G5's and many more planning on buying one. I have yet to meet a single person who owns an alienware system.
This has like completely ruined my life, I am so demoralized.
Whatever...
This is the start of a whole new Propaganda War and in the PC world Apple is Goldstein, driving people to hysterics. Let the Two Minutes Hate begin.
The only thing that bothers me is how the high end PCs tested are ones that hardly anyone would ever buy but are able to cast a halo effect on all the Compaqs, Dells, and Gateways out there.
I actually know people who own G5's and many more planning on buying one. I have yet to meet a single person who owns an alienware system.
I think they are doing the comparisons on the best setup for each system that you can buy.... Apples systems are very expensive and if you can get more perfomance from an AMD system by spending a little more than you should do it. However, they still have all the virus issues and no FCP, iTunes (eeer wait), idvd, iphoto etc etc.
Not to nag, 'cause after all, we're the good guys... BUT, we sound EXACTLY like the PC crowd sounded when Apple first posted benchmarks for the G5s. We're discrediting their numbers just as they tryed to discredits ours. ^_^ I'm not saying that we're wrong in doing so. Just that... we're more alike than I tought.
Now, let the debate continue!
(Edited: Typos)
Now, let the debate continue!
(Edited: Typos)
To a degree, I agree with you. We should continue this debate with more decorum instead of insults, because that would be beneath us fine Macintosh users.
But...overall, I think we're NOT doing exactly what the PCers did. Most of the rebuttals I've seen make sure to recognize that we're debating the actual test procedure as being biased. We're not saying the numbers those tests produced are wrong. I fully believe that the tests PC World did, explained the way they did, produced those results as printed. I don't believe they "lied" as everyone claimed Apple did.
At first, many people also said the G5 tests were biased, because of GCC as the compiler and HyperThreading turned off and all that stuff. But then Apple clearly explained why they did what they did, and then most people ended up having to shut up because there was no evidence Apple "rigged" anything to hurt the PCs. Even though people can still complain they didn't like HOW Apple did the tests, no independent PC review group has re-run Apple's tests and proved Apple was wrong or "lied" in some way.
I guess the same thing is going on here...we can't say PC World lied, only that we question whether or not their test is a fair comparison. I personally believe Apple's test methodology was far more fair, but it's best not to re-debate that issue all over again with the Wintel crowd. Instead, I'd LOVE to see PC World run Apple's test suite and prove Apple lied, or admit to the whole PC community that Apple's results were 100% accurate.
But that won't happen...apparently Word and Premiere tests are as "fair" as PC World can manage.
-- Ensoniq
OMG, do some of you people post w/o reading the thread or clicking on the original like?
Go to the article and look at the last page. PCWorld tested the PCs stock, and they unRAIDed the HDDs and replaced the 256meg vid card w/the 128meg version and ran the benchmarks again.
Lethal
Go to the article and look at the last page. PCWorld tested the PCs stock, and they unRAIDed the HDDs and replaced the 256meg vid card w/the 128meg version and ran the benchmarks again.
Lethal
I disagree
In this case, I don't think we're like the "PC crowd" at all. I think this is an over the top and blatant spin-type of article that plagues the world today. Fair journalism is dead, we now live in a world where misinformation is king, and this article is proof. Marketing predators have learned that most people just read headlines, or even if they read the article, the headline sticks. Lazy humans are preyed upon in this society by advertisers and agenda driven "jounalists" like a cheetah preys upon the weakest gazelle. That is why we are crying FOUL! And we should, it is important. If someone writes an at least somewhat fair article with decent Benchmarks and a headline that is appropriate things would be different. We would all be saying this: "It's the OS that really matters and at that level of speed it isn't as big a deal" But this isn't the case. The fact is that the article is FUD. Noone should feel bad about exposing it...
In this case, I don't think we're like the "PC crowd" at all. I think this is an over the top and blatant spin-type of article that plagues the world today. Fair journalism is dead, we now live in a world where misinformation is king, and this article is proof. Marketing predators have learned that most people just read headlines, or even if they read the article, the headline sticks. Lazy humans are preyed upon in this society by advertisers and agenda driven "jounalists" like a cheetah preys upon the weakest gazelle. That is why we are crying FOUL! And we should, it is important. If someone writes an at least somewhat fair article with decent Benchmarks and a headline that is appropriate things would be different. We would all be saying this: "It's the OS that really matters and at that level of speed it isn't as big a deal" But this isn't the case. The fact is that the article is FUD. Noone should feel bad about exposing it...
i'll just point out that all your definitions of a "fair" article is one where the Apple wins. you don't care about anything else. so take a look in the mirror. you're almost as bad as religious fanatics.
try to keep an open mind. a closed mind is a very dangerous thing.
you fit my signature like a glove.
try to keep an open mind. a closed mind is a very dangerous thing.
i didn't realize any computers these days had beige boxes.
you fit my signature like a glove.
either that or...
"If you think one platform is hands down better than the other you are either a fanboy or misinformed." -LethalWolfe
...or perhaps you just have an opinion as to which OS works best for you.
- Copperpipe
"If you think one platform is hands down better than the other you are either a fanboy or misinformed." -LethalWolfe
...or perhaps you just have an opinion as to which OS works best for you.
- Copperpipe
Re: either that or...
actually, no. if i did have an OS that works best for me, i wouldn't be dual booting linux/windows xp.
As sad as the results are, accept them.
We can't blame PCworld for these results, if the G5 was disadvantaged in the test group it's clearly a "Mac users" fault. After all... well I'll let you read the Quote:
Even Apple's 2-GHz dual-CPU G5 unit had a hard time keeping up with a single-chip FX-51 PC in most tests. (Tests were not exhaustive, however: Working with our sibling publication, Macworld, we selected four applications available on both platforms and then ran seven hand-timed tests. Our test suite, PC WorldBench 4, cannot run on Macs.)
If the guys at Macworld could not provide good test data, or at least valid arguements to the PCworld writers about which applications to use as comparisons, then the truth is probably that the results speak for themselves.
None of this is going to mean much to anyone. Mac users will continue to Mac, and Wintel users will still wonder why anyone uses a Mac, until they try it themselves. We can all agree there is a lot more to Macs and OSX than the measurable speed of 4 applications.
We can't blame PCworld for these results, if the G5 was disadvantaged in the test group it's clearly a "Mac users" fault. After all... well I'll let you read the Quote:
Even Apple's 2-GHz dual-CPU G5 unit had a hard time keeping up with a single-chip FX-51 PC in most tests. (Tests were not exhaustive, however: Working with our sibling publication, Macworld, we selected four applications available on both platforms and then ran seven hand-timed tests. Our test suite, PC WorldBench 4, cannot run on Macs.)
If the guys at Macworld could not provide good test data, or at least valid arguements to the PCworld writers about which applications to use as comparisons, then the truth is probably that the results speak for themselves.
None of this is going to mean much to anyone. Mac users will continue to Mac, and Wintel users will still wonder why anyone uses a Mac, until they try it themselves. We can all agree there is a lot more to Macs and OSX than the measurable speed of 4 applications.
A few things... the AMD 64 systems were single proc, the 2GHz G5 is a dual. QT is a Apple program, and it is 2x faster on the AMD? Granted, previous poster mentioned the details ignore as to what QT was actually encoding.Originally posted by benixau
ummmm -
*didnt adboe drop premiere for mac due to crap performance copmared to FCP?
*it doesn't suprise me that a microsoft program runs faster on a microsoft OS than on its competitors OS.
*they didn't mention anything about the G5 optimisations from adobe for Pshop
*im glad they used a 64-bit OS for both platforms (NOT) I do belive that unless apple likes them a lot (unlikely) they were running jag-G5-edition rather than panther.
IMO it was an unfair test - lets pit pshop w/all optimisations and renderman against each platform - under panther. then lets see whose got the fastest machine. <- what no takers? shame
The G5 is nice. The AMD 64 is nice. It should be obvious to whomever buys what system, as to what meets their needs.
The G4 12" PB with the new 1GHz proc is a "better" machine than what is in my sig, but I knew what my needs were.
I am going to go back to doing something usefull, like smashing my head into the wall.
--
KidRed - ask for a poll of how many people use MS Word at work. It is one of the most valid apps you could benchmark. Much more so than Photoshop (on the PC side of the world).
I find it interesting that the pentium 4 system faired poorly despite having a 256MB graphics card, RAID, and code primarily optimized for it. If it takes these new radical chip designs from AMD to even give the G5 a run for its money, then Apple is doing just fine. Sure, the tests were skewed such that the G5 didn't really have a chance. Despite this it still fared pretty well, despite the inflammatory headlines.
The bottom line is that the G5 is fast, AMD is very fast for a PC, and Intel is well...very um...expensive?
The bottom line is that the G5 is fast, AMD is very fast for a PC, and Intel is well...very um...expensive?
1. There is no 2GHz Opteron single or dual PollyStation listed on the website.
So is PC Mag testing pre-release machines against a machine thats been out for over a month?
2. A dual 1.8 Opteron with 256 MB vid card is $3763. With no modem monitor and only CD-RW drive and 512 RAM
how is Apple a bad deal!?
So is PC Mag testing pre-release machines against a machine thats been out for over a month?
2. A dual 1.8 Opteron with 256 MB vid card is $3763. With no modem monitor and only CD-RW drive and 512 RAM
how is Apple a bad deal!?
Independance, let's just clear this up..
Here's the material we're debating:
"If you think one platform is hands down better than the other you are either a fanboy or misinformed." -LethalWolfe
...or perhaps you just have an opinion as to which OS works best for you.
- Copperpipe
actually, no. if i did have an OS that works best for me, i wouldn't be dual booting linux/windows xp
______
Now, LethalWolfes quotation is addressing me (notice the use of the word "you"). In fact, it is addressing everyone with the statement you've quoted. My reply to that is this: "I can have an opinion as to what OS works best for me, and in fact anyone can have such an opinion, and I nor anyone else is necessarily a fanboy or misinformed."
So when you tell me about your setup it doesn't matter. Dual booting works best for you, that's great! It's a big world out there, and we all have separate needs.
here's some more opinion for ya:
Lethalwolfes illogical quote I think is designed to make other people feel small, and to make the person who states the quote to feel "powerful".
Here's the material we're debating:
"If you think one platform is hands down better than the other you are either a fanboy or misinformed." -LethalWolfe
...or perhaps you just have an opinion as to which OS works best for you.
- Copperpipe
actually, no. if i did have an OS that works best for me, i wouldn't be dual booting linux/windows xp
______
Now, LethalWolfes quotation is addressing me (notice the use of the word "you"). In fact, it is addressing everyone with the statement you've quoted. My reply to that is this: "I can have an opinion as to what OS works best for me, and in fact anyone can have such an opinion, and I nor anyone else is necessarily a fanboy or misinformed."
So when you tell me about your setup it doesn't matter. Dual booting works best for you, that's great! It's a big world out there, and we all have separate needs.
here's some more opinion for ya:
Lethalwolfes illogical quote I think is designed to make other people feel small, and to make the person who states the quote to feel "powerful".
Re: Independance, let's just clear this up..
What is illogical about saying that Macs and PCs both have pro's and con's and neither platform is completely superior to the other? Thinking that one platform *is* completely superior to the other in every way, shape, and form is, IMO, illogical. That is the point of my quote. It's not meant to make anyone feel small, or make myself feel powerful.
I'm not saying people are misinformed or fanboys if they have a perference or they think one platofrom is superior in some ways, I'm just saying that they are minsinformed or fanboys if, as I said, they believe one platform is completely superior than the other in every way.
Lethal
What is illogical about saying that Macs and PCs both have pro's and con's and neither platform is completely superior to the other? Thinking that one platform *is* completely superior to the other in every way, shape, and form is, IMO, illogical. That is the point of my quote. It's not meant to make anyone feel small, or make myself feel powerful.
I'm not saying people are misinformed or fanboys if they have a perference or they think one platofrom is superior in some ways, I'm just saying that they are minsinformed or fanboys if, as I said, they believe one platform is completely superior than the other in every way.
Lethal
A test that I would be REALLY interested in...
is something that I do every day, use Avid Xpress DV 3.5.
IIRC it was written for OSX. Both Winblows & OSX seem to run it well, although it is much more snappy on my AMD Athlon XP machine than on my G4 Powermac (single processor). All I really care about is rendering, how long does it take each machine to render really big effects? That make real-world difference to me.
Either way, whichever 64 bitter is faster, they both smoke Intel... and isn't that a good thing?
And IBM is making us faster, so life is good. Panther will make my computer faster.
OSX is my OS of choice. I don't have to have the world's fastest computer, but I do have to have the world's best OS.
is something that I do every day, use Avid Xpress DV 3.5.
IIRC it was written for OSX. Both Winblows & OSX seem to run it well, although it is much more snappy on my AMD Athlon XP machine than on my G4 Powermac (single processor). All I really care about is rendering, how long does it take each machine to render really big effects? That make real-world difference to me.
Either way, whichever 64 bitter is faster, they both smoke Intel... and isn't that a good thing?
And IBM is making us faster, so life is good. Panther will make my computer faster.
OSX is my OS of choice. I don't have to have the world's fastest computer, but I do have to have the world's best OS.
We've gone from "hands down" to "completely superior"
I use both windows Xp at work and Mac OS X at home. In my opinion, OS X wins "Hands down" over XP. Of course not in EVERY WAY, that is rediculous as you say. For me it is a question of priorities and "feel" for lack of a better word. I just gravitate towards OS X because I seem to just enjoy it more, and thus I am more productive with it. I know that these are intangible things, but they are the reasons that for me, OS X is "hands down" a better OS (plus the fact that it has never crashed on me in two years now, installing new items is so much more a snap, and other very specific reasons). If someone thinks XP wins "Hands down" for them then that's fine with me. I guess it was all a question of symantics...
I use both windows Xp at work and Mac OS X at home. In my opinion, OS X wins "Hands down" over XP. Of course not in EVERY WAY, that is rediculous as you say. For me it is a question of priorities and "feel" for lack of a better word. I just gravitate towards OS X because I seem to just enjoy it more, and thus I am more productive with it. I know that these are intangible things, but they are the reasons that for me, OS X is "hands down" a better OS (plus the fact that it has never crashed on me in two years now, installing new items is so much more a snap, and other very specific reasons). If someone thinks XP wins "Hands down" for them then that's fine with me. I guess it was all a question of symantics...
http://spl.haxial.net/apple-powermac-G5/
Would any Mac lover like to dissagree with this site?
Aivd Xpress Pro is the only comparison. If anyone has both machines then we can decide the true victor.
Would any Mac lover like to dissagree with this site?
Aivd Xpress Pro is the only comparison. If anyone has both machines then we can decide the true victor.
very good point. They should use avid to test as it is heavily optimised for both platforms (alti-vec and SSE2). Hey, they can afford it with the $200 they saved on buying the single processor pc instead of the dual processor mac.
first of all, there are no autovectoring compilers yet for the mac. IBM and Apple said at the WWDC in july when i spoke to engineers that they are working on this at the moment. Both GCC 3.3 and ICC optimize like hell for SSE and SSE2 for opteron and pentium 4 so those platforms automatically get nice optimized apps. Presently the only way an app will have Altivec optimizations let alone G5 optimizations is if the programmer writes the commands him/herself. its C like in syntax. so not as difficult to write as SSE or SSE2. It also has the potential to cause much much greater boost in speed in a wider variety of apps than SSE2 or SSE presently. Expect apple to rectify this situation shortly with an auto vectoring compiler (a compiler that will automatically try to to optimize for a vector unit).
As for the macworld / pcworld 'review'. Absolutely rubbish. Anyway most of whats being discussed here has already been discussed here.
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49201
I know i put a big rant in there. But bear with me on what i wrote there. I have the oportunity to work with all three platforms. I explained at that link the flaws in the reviewing and 'benchmarking' process used by PC/Macworld. I also linked to a good few third party independent and reliable sources for bench's that you me and whoever could easiliy recreate here today.
Incidentally there was a review done by barefeats the other day. Interestingly the G5 won every benchmark except the photoshop!. Interesting that.... funnily enough if they had taken the G5 optimized results of photoshop 7 instead of CS they would have seen the G5 win by a small margin. Makes me wonder what the heck Adobe were doing when the optimized going from version 7 to cs which actually runs slightly slower on G5!
rgs
i_wolf
As for the macworld / pcworld 'review'. Absolutely rubbish. Anyway most of whats being discussed here has already been discussed here.
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49201
I know i put a big rant in there. But bear with me on what i wrote there. I have the oportunity to work with all three platforms. I explained at that link the flaws in the reviewing and 'benchmarking' process used by PC/Macworld. I also linked to a good few third party independent and reliable sources for bench's that you me and whoever could easiliy recreate here today.
Incidentally there was a review done by barefeats the other day. Interestingly the G5 won every benchmark except the photoshop!. Interesting that.... funnily enough if they had taken the G5 optimized results of photoshop 7 instead of CS they would have seen the G5 win by a small margin. Makes me wonder what the heck Adobe were doing when the optimized going from version 7 to cs which actually runs slightly slower on G5!
rgs
i_wolf
reality
AMD has been working on this chip for years, carefully planning the architecture and mapping out how it was going to work and perform- it doesn't suprise me that it does apparently outperform the G5 in some instances, allthough, the thing us Mac folks have to realize is the G5 is a brand new thing, and I think that Apple maybe even rushed this out the door a little- what that means is we're looking at a Mac machine that was put together quickly and is bound to be updated. The G5 in benchmarks I've seen in various places they've been done has performed unbeleiveably slow in some cases, which I think hints to the fact there's some defecencies with perhaps the motherboard or it's chipset, or perhaps how the operating system enteracts with them. Even if there are no problems whatsoever, the machines we're using I beleive are a "rev A", and that always gives way to "rev B" which is bigger, better, and faster than the previous. So today we may be at a loss, tomarrow we may get a new chipset and really shine. And even if that isn't so, I've got a dualie Athlon sitting behind me right now, and instead I'm using my extremely modded out PMac 7600.. (you CAN put Jag on them..) why? the thing just works, without this OS that makes it usable and freindly and trustworthy, it's just a lifeless hunk of pretty hardware like my dual AMD......
AMD has been working on this chip for years, carefully planning the architecture and mapping out how it was going to work and perform- it doesn't suprise me that it does apparently outperform the G5 in some instances, allthough, the thing us Mac folks have to realize is the G5 is a brand new thing, and I think that Apple maybe even rushed this out the door a little- what that means is we're looking at a Mac machine that was put together quickly and is bound to be updated. The G5 in benchmarks I've seen in various places they've been done has performed unbeleiveably slow in some cases, which I think hints to the fact there's some defecencies with perhaps the motherboard or it's chipset, or perhaps how the operating system enteracts with them. Even if there are no problems whatsoever, the machines we're using I beleive are a "rev A", and that always gives way to "rev B" which is bigger, better, and faster than the previous. So today we may be at a loss, tomarrow we may get a new chipset and really shine. And even if that isn't so, I've got a dualie Athlon sitting behind me right now, and instead I'm using my extremely modded out PMac 7600.. (you CAN put Jag on them..) why? the thing just works, without this OS that makes it usable and freindly and trustworthy, it's just a lifeless hunk of pretty hardware like my dual AMD......
I personally don't even consider PC world a good magazine for this kind of information--for these reasons:
1) Remember when AMD was getting spanked by the 3.2Ghz P4 b/c the best AMD proc wuz the 3200+, which is no where NEAR the 3.2Ghz in most games/benches/applications? PC world SOMEHOW found that the 3200+ was "outperforming" the 3.2P4--but I and most people know better than that.
To come even CLOSE to matching the P4 using the traditional Athlon XP's, required HEAVY FSB overclocking--and thank god there is the Abit NF7-S (which have had people avg easily 215-230's). And only THEN can they even come close to matching the 3.2P4--of course, then, Intel fans point out, and rightfully so, the 2.4 which can reach 3.0Ghz using "1000fsb" or 250fsb quad pumped--and their advantage in memory/games is even greater...anyway
The 3.2P4 was obviously better than the 3200+, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out--but somehow PC world's "benchmark" (their own program) somehow found the 3200+ outperforming the 3.2P4.
2) This comparison is clearly not fair b/c they are running mostly SINGLE CPU applications and comparing it to an SMP setup (dual G5's). Comparable PC eqivalents are the Xeon and Opteron setups (i guess the 2.8 533fsb Xeon and the 246 Opteron (more affordable @ 700bucks a pair).
*SMPs are good for one thing--multiple threads!!! And that was obviously not the focal point of PC world's testing process.
HOWEVER, while the G5 is a "mainstream" SMP setup, there are NO opteron and xeon EQUIVALENTS out there that can be picked up @ Best Buy--again, apples and oranges (pardon the pun )
What they SHOULD be comparing is either the single 1.8G5 to., say, the 3200+ Athlon64 (which is about $300 a pop now, a HECK of alot closer to the price range of the 1.8G5 than the FX-51), or the 3.0P4 (again, closer in price range, $270ish). Obviously a single 2.0G5 vs. the FX and P4 would be better, but alas, that is not an available option from Apple for a "clear cut" comparison.
So what the heck am i saying? I'm saying they didn't compare the right chips, and certainly didn't use the right benchmarks.
And again, benchmarks are in the eye of the beholder (PShop for graphics guys, 3dmark - as controversial as it is--for gamers, PCmark (but no Mac equivalent of this) for overall performance or Content Creation test for that matter--but AGAIN, no Mac eqiuvalent.
With no "universal", widely accepted benchmarks, bickering is inevitable, and confusion abound lol, j/k on the confusion.
1) Remember when AMD was getting spanked by the 3.2Ghz P4 b/c the best AMD proc wuz the 3200+, which is no where NEAR the 3.2Ghz in most games/benches/applications? PC world SOMEHOW found that the 3200+ was "outperforming" the 3.2P4--but I and most people know better than that.
To come even CLOSE to matching the P4 using the traditional Athlon XP's, required HEAVY FSB overclocking--and thank god there is the Abit NF7-S (which have had people avg easily 215-230's). And only THEN can they even come close to matching the 3.2P4--of course, then, Intel fans point out, and rightfully so, the 2.4 which can reach 3.0Ghz using "1000fsb" or 250fsb quad pumped--and their advantage in memory/games is even greater...anyway
The 3.2P4 was obviously better than the 3200+, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out--but somehow PC world's "benchmark" (their own program) somehow found the 3200+ outperforming the 3.2P4.
2) This comparison is clearly not fair b/c they are running mostly SINGLE CPU applications and comparing it to an SMP setup (dual G5's). Comparable PC eqivalents are the Xeon and Opteron setups (i guess the 2.8 533fsb Xeon and the 246 Opteron (more affordable @ 700bucks a pair).
*SMPs are good for one thing--multiple threads!!! And that was obviously not the focal point of PC world's testing process.
HOWEVER, while the G5 is a "mainstream" SMP setup, there are NO opteron and xeon EQUIVALENTS out there that can be picked up @ Best Buy--again, apples and oranges (pardon the pun
)What they SHOULD be comparing is either the single 1.8G5 to., say, the 3200+ Athlon64 (which is about $300 a pop now, a HECK of alot closer to the price range of the 1.8G5 than the FX-51), or the 3.0P4 (again, closer in price range, $270ish). Obviously a single 2.0G5 vs. the FX and P4 would be better, but alas, that is not an available option from Apple for a "clear cut" comparison.
So what the heck am i saying? I'm saying they didn't compare the right chips, and certainly didn't use the right benchmarks.
And again, benchmarks are in the eye of the beholder (PShop for graphics guys, 3dmark - as controversial as it is--for gamers, PCmark (but no Mac equivalent of this) for overall performance or Content Creation test for that matter--but AGAIN, no Mac eqiuvalent.
With no "universal", widely accepted benchmarks, bickering is inevitable, and confusion abound
lol, j/k on the confusion.- Status