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.
problems with the G5 benchmarks?
- Thread starter f-matic
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
tha is what i meant when i said i did not believe the guy in the other thread.
GO Apple!!!!!!
As for my pleasant death i want to die as i said before, a g5 crashing into my head from the room upstairs and leaving me a most beautiful tattoo in the forehead, hehehhehehehhe
I noticed another, albiet small, piece of information in the PDF that he quoted.
The G5 had 1.5GB of RAM installed, whereas both Dells had 2GB.
Another thing: The Dells ran Red Hat Linux 9.0 with no X windowing system or window server running.
The G5 had 1.5GB of RAM installed, whereas both Dells had 2GB.
Another thing: The Dells ran Red Hat Linux 9.0 with no X windowing system or window server running.
I suspect noone's whining about those tests because they can't be easily be debunked. They can't be debunked presumably because they weren't done by a benchmarking organization that as a matter of policy is tranparent about the how the tests are done as with the CPU2000 benchmarks.
I suspect they were done by Apple themselves, and why's Apple going to say, 'actually, we rigged this test to make the PCs look terrible'.
Re: Re: what a load of whiny crap
It's not really that straightforward. Let's say your monitor refreshes at 100Hz and you want non-jerky motion throughout your game. It's no good for your game to refresh at 98 fps or 102 fps, then frames need to be dropped or stilled by the framebuffer in order to sync to the monitor, causing jerking (however imperceptible) in the game. You need to be keep the refresh rate at EXACTLY 100fps throughout, or an integer multiple thereof, (200, 300 fps).
'Well', you say, 'this still doesn't explain why any card would need to do 300fps, when we only need 100' Remember that 300fps recorded in a benchmark is an AVERAGE. This means that if you get a scene with 100 high-poly monsters running around chomping at you and one another, the action could slow down by a factor of 4 or 5, putting you at around 80 fps, causing jerking in the action again.
It's never made a big difference to me, but I'm not really a serious gamer, or a gamer at all really. They're definitely NOT imaginary issues.
Originally posted by MrJamie
Good point. I wish PC gamers had half a brain sometimes
Originally posted by MrJamie
Good point. I wish PC gamers had half a brain sometimes
It's not really that straightforward. Let's say your monitor refreshes at 100Hz and you want non-jerky motion throughout your game. It's no good for your game to refresh at 98 fps or 102 fps, then frames need to be dropped or stilled by the framebuffer in order to sync to the monitor, causing jerking (however imperceptible) in the game. You need to be keep the refresh rate at EXACTLY 100fps throughout, or an integer multiple thereof, (200, 300 fps).
'Well', you say, 'this still doesn't explain why any card would need to do 300fps, when we only need 100' Remember that 300fps recorded in a benchmark is an AVERAGE. This means that if you get a scene with 100 high-poly monsters running around chomping at you and one another, the action could slow down by a factor of 4 or 5, putting you at around 80 fps, causing jerking in the action again.
It's never made a big difference to me, but I'm not really a serious gamer, or a gamer at all really. They're definitely NOT imaginary issues.
Re: what a load of whiny crap
Yes, the new G5s are great. As others have said already, I just wish they compared them to the current G4s so we would know how fast they really are. PCs to Macs is like Apples to Oranges...
I find it remarkable that Apple has only lowered the prices on their current 1.25 ghz. G4s by $300. Damn, those things hold their value, even when the G5 is 4 times faster (or whatever ridiculous amount it is).
I'll probably buy a G5, but I think I'll wait for rev. B when they're up to dual 2.5s or something.
Sorry, I didn't get a chance to go and drink whatever magic kool-aid Jobs is feeding you...
Yes, the new G5s are great. As others have said already, I just wish they compared them to the current G4s so we would know how fast they really are. PCs to Macs is like Apples to Oranges...
I find it remarkable that Apple has only lowered the prices on their current 1.25 ghz. G4s by $300. Damn, those things hold their value, even when the G5 is 4 times faster (or whatever ridiculous amount it is).
I'll probably buy a G5, but I think I'll wait for rev. B when they're up to dual 2.5s or something.
If you guys read the whole article (including the hate mail at the bottom of the article), you would see that someone bitched about this.
He says he turned anti-aliasing off before doing the screen captures because it kind of messes up the captured image. I can buy that. It's kind of funny when half of the responses on this message board sound just like the hate mail he received after posting his article.
It seems like a lot of people at ArsTechnica would disagree with you.
But then, who are they? Obviously just idiots too weak minded to resist the reality distortion.
Sheesh, please try to be realistic when you post.
Who is being unrealistic? These statistics are coming straight from their own test logs, and they show that Apple intentionally disabled certain variants that would allow a PC to out perform the G5. I'm not saying that this should effect whether you buy the G5, but rather that you should be more wary of Apple's honesty.
How is this news though? Apple has been RENOWNED for twisting the truth on benchmarks for YEARS. The fact that they did it AGAIN is totally irrelevant.
Mac enthusiasts are happy, as well they should be, because they have workstations available to them that may be able to compete from the point of view of CPU performance with a PC for the first time in a few years. Apple might have made this announcement controversial with their claims, but hey, any publicity is good publicity.
It's unlikely that this new round of fibbing will change anyone's mind concerning their platform of choice, and frankly, who cares?
Here is what OS 9 looks like, ill try to get a windows pic in a minute.
iJon
edit: well since it was hard to tell i compared dollar signs, that was easy. not os 9 ie 5 for all i know. i didnt even mess with netscape, and i probably wont go check because i dont care. and its not win xp ie 6. maybe win 98 or something. But OS 9 and XP render fonts very similar on this page. I'm still guessing OS 9 because its too much trouble to take a selection scree on Windows when on the mac you can hit apple shift 4. dont think it matters though. who cares what he thinks. all i know if pc users arent so worried they wouldnt be goin out there way to nit pick at apple's AWESOME G5 specs at AWESOME prices.
iJon
iJon
edit: well since it was hard to tell i compared dollar signs, that was easy. not os 9 ie 5 for all i know. i didnt even mess with netscape, and i probably wont go check because i dont care. and its not win xp ie 6. maybe win 98 or something. But OS 9 and XP render fonts very similar on this page. I'm still guessing OS 9 because its too much trouble to take a selection scree on Windows when on the mac you can hit apple shift 4. dont think it matters though. who cares what he thinks. all i know if pc users arent so worried they wouldnt be goin out there way to nit pick at apple's AWESOME G5 specs at AWESOME prices.
iJon
SPECs? I thought GigaFlops were the industry standard?
I already discredited the benchmarks when Steve said "industry standard benchmark," and if hadn't been used by Apple Marketing before, everything's an industry standard when Apple marketing starts using it, isn't it? The authors interpretation of the results are probably accurate. On the plus side, all of his info came from documentation provided from the source. What's wrong with that? At least they're open about it. It's a sharp contrast to the MS switch ad, and also a far cry from Englishtown.
Anyway, this quote from the article is my favorite (Before you accuse me of rewriting Slashdot comments, I read the article before I read the comments on Slashdot to see if anyone mentioned this. Wow. That was too much info. Oh well.):
I mean, we're all getting ripped off every day, unless you're shopping at the paramount of honesty: The garage sale. Everything's priced with $1, $5, $40 and 50(cent - I'm not on my mac right now) increments. No dishonesty there.
My second favorite section is the "hate mail" which appears to actually be comments from Slashdot. That's another story though.
I already discredited the benchmarks when Steve said "industry standard benchmark," and if hadn't been used by Apple Marketing before, everything's an industry standard when Apple marketing starts using it, isn't it? The authors interpretation of the results are probably accurate. On the plus side, all of his info came from documentation provided from the source. What's wrong with that? At least they're open about it. It's a sharp contrast to the MS switch ad, and also a far cry from Englishtown.
Anyway, this quote from the article is my favorite (Before you accuse me of rewriting Slashdot comments, I read the article before I read the comments on Slashdot to see if anyone mentioned this. Wow. That was too much info. Oh well.):
I mean, we're all getting ripped off every day, unless you're shopping at the paramount of honesty: The garage sale. Everything's priced with $1, $5, $40 and 50(cent - I'm not on my mac right now) increments. No dishonesty there.
My second favorite section is the "hate mail" which appears to actually be comments from Slashdot. That's another story though.
...and the Dell Spec numbers come straight from...wait for it...wait for it...Dell ! Tadaaaaa !
I am sure those tests are much more honest
These same anti-mac-pro-pc whiners can't grab a pc and run 100 filters on a 300mg file and then compare it to the G5 results?
I guess we'll have to wait for real tests once the machines ship. I just can't believe if Apple lied about the spec scores that no one has said "BS! My dual P4 does that photoshop test in only 2.3 seconds!!" Yet, alas, I've seen none of those replies...
Not forgetting to mention the dells has 2g RAM while the G5 had 1.5g Ram. The Dells also has some tweaks, no window server and some other features turned off that would run in the background using CPU. Yet the author said the Dell were out of the box? Whatever.
Re: what a load of whiny crap
The SPECmarks (except for the rate) are quite accurate, however, the Pentium 4 used in the comparison was the older 3.06 GHz model with 533 MHz FSB. Might I direct you to the link below where I posted some calculations for the newer Pentium 4s. Look at the posts on the middle of the page.
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30303&perpage=25&pagenumber=14
The SPECmarks (except for the rate) are quite accurate, however, the Pentium 4 used in the comparison was the older 3.06 GHz model with 533 MHz FSB. Might I direct you to the link below where I posted some calculations for the newer Pentium 4s. Look at the posts on the middle of the page.
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30303&perpage=25&pagenumber=14
-MrJamie, iJon
Hmmm. He's only three posts (at this point) and he's already rude.
There's something familiar about this guy's sentence structure from a certain flame/ban/flame/ban war from this weekend. Though we are not yet being called "idiots", "fools", and "suckers".
You don't suppose the only Apple product he has is an iPod do you?