Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

The G5 - Is it really Slow????

I'd still rather use a slower Mac than a faster PC anyway.

If those benchmarks are true, Apple has a bit of crap to wade through - because they're never going to hear the end of it. But, as most of the world consists of PC zealots, I tend to believe that those machines were tweaked beyond what is readily available to the consumer market. Also - their argument is slightly flawed. If Dell overclocked their machines for some tests, and Apple was merely demonstrating the power of the G5 sans overclocking, then those benchmarks really ARE fake. The average joe doesn't know how to overclock any machine.

If those benchmarks are false, however, it would only be typical of the petulent PC world that their beloved machines aren't the best anymore. Hooray for IBM and Apple.
 
It's probably completely made up, or tweaked in some way that hurts the Mac and helps the PC. Regardless, I'd rather have my Dual 867 than the fastest Intels, AMDs, or HPs.
 
there is no way to fairly compare a PC with a Mac.
In this matter, Apple tweaked the computers so the G5 will look as though it is faster than the PC's. On Overclockers.com, they tweaked it in favor of the PC's. And of course, there is no way to benchmark the hardware without having the software in it somewhere. Mac OS X and Linux and Windows are all different so of course if you run a benchmarking app on Linux you'll get different scores than you would in Windows.

Oh and don't trust anything on overclockers.com, that site is full of BS.

Don't trust me either, I'm biased :p but I seriously think that my Power Mac G4 is faster than my dual P4 Xeon :p when running photoshop and a few other apps i use often
 
Overclockers pointed out that the Pentium 4 could score much better in SPEC if it used a Intel compiler, however, they failed to note that the G5 could also scale better had it used an AIX compiler as was clearly shown by the IBM's preliminary PPC970 SPEC scores. That's not to say Apple is completely without fault here, they probably did bench the G5 originally using the latest AIX compiler but the results were likely not as impressive as originally hoped. So in order to make the G5 look better, they compared a G5 running a specially optimized version of GCC 3.3, to a P4 running a standard version of GCC (which itself is poorly optimized for the P4).

So to answer your question, is the G5 fast? It certainly looks like it, is it the fastest desktop on the planet? It could well be but we'll probably have to wait for some benchmarks that aren't submitted by Apple to find out.
 
I agree with the article on many levels. on the guru and a flock comment. if apple came out with the equivalent of a 400 mhz celeron in their next big computer (like G5, etc), I believe a lot of mac users would buy it because of its pretty case. As a whole I think its fair to say that not everyone is like this, butr look what we pay for. true we have more reliability, some porgrams run faster, better stuff out of the box, good looks, but often times its a slower experience.

I am not trying to be a troll. I am not attempting to be represenative of all mac users, I just think its fair to accept that Macs are not going to be the fastest computers, right now.

I agree on both sides of the issue. I agree with mac users that macs are superior to pc's for the reliability and so forth that they offer. However I agree with the article in that it is true that Apple does hide intense details about their computers.

I guess I am just a moderate in this issue, a moderate on political topics, and a moderate person in reality.
 
Originally posted by tazo
... I just think its fair to accept that Macs are not going to be the fastest computers, right now...
Click to expand...

Why exactly is it "fair" to believe in the bollocks benchmarks of an obscure PC favoring website more than in the Apple benchmarks? And by the way, SCREW all those f***ing benchmarks, they mean nothing at all as they can obviously be bent in any direction one likes to bend them. If the REAL WORLD PERFORMANCE of the G5 is anywhere near the demos at the WWDC keynote, the P4 is just yesterdays tech, period.
 
Originally posted by Billicus
It's balogna...
Click to expand...

What is "Bologna"? Anyway people make these stupid benchmarks becouse they are insecure that their top of the line PC maybe slower than a Macintosh.
 
Originally posted by the future
Why exactly is it "fair" to believe in the bollocks benchmarks of an obscure PC favoring website more than in the Apple benchmarks? And by the way, SCREW all those f***ing benchmarks, they mean nothing at all as they can obviously be bent in any direction one likes to bend them. If the REAL WORLD PERFORMANCE of the G5 is anywhere near the demos at the WWDC keynote, the P4 is just yesterdays tech, period.
Click to expand...

I can see where my debating of this article will lead to a warning, hurt feelings, loss of appetite, so I am not going to continue. You all read my comments.
 
Why do all these people attacking Apple ignore the source of the benchmarks: Veritest?

It's Veritest's ass on the line if the scores were manipulated. It's easier for these PC weenies, running scared because of the G5, to pick on Apple than to fairly evaluate the scores.

As always, it comes down to real world benchmarks...when the G5s come out in Aug/Sep.
 
LOL..another PC Idiot

The more likely major culprit, though, is the compiler used to get the spec source code ready for processing and what was done with it. The x86 manufacturers (outside of the Opteron tests, which often used a beta version of Suse Linux 64-bit) used the general standards: either the Intel and MS C++ and Fortran compilers, while Apple used a compiler you've never heard of (at least in the x86 world).
Click to expand...

This idiot has never heard of GCC??? :eek:
Explain to your friend that Apple had to standardize on the same compiler that would run all all platforms. GCC ,while being OpenSouce and perhaps not as efficient as Intels or IBMS compilers, runs on both platforms hence it's selection.

This guy is making the same mistake that the Haxial guy is. He's comparing Apples results and then crying foul because it doesn't match the numbers on Intel/AMD sites.


Finally, in the Apple testing, the code for the Apple machines were tweaked to the max with all kinds of libraries installed, while the code for x86 machines were largely default out-of-the-box experience.
Click to expand...

Ummmm proof. There's a pdf from the Veritest that completely shows the configuration of the tested computers. FUD personified here.
 
Originally posted by Spock
What is "Bologna"? Anyway people make these stupid benchmarks becouse they are insecure that their top of the line PC maybe slower than a Macintosh.
Click to expand...

Being biased, I believe it's a bunch of Balogna because they're just trying to swing the numbers in their favor, obviously. One could also argue that Apple swings the numbers in their favor, so it's a toss up.
 

Attachments

  • bologna.jpg
    bologna.jpg
    4.3 KB · Views: 921
I am not trying to be a troll. I am not attempting to be represenative of all mac users, I just think its fair to accept that Macs are not going to be the fastest computers, right now.
Click to expand...

Yes and that's your right. But some of us feel equally the opposite. We know have the pdf with the schematics of the G5 Mobo and I honestly can says it blows Intels Canterwood platform away.

I tend to think that Mac Site administrators have been taking a "wait and see" approach and it's the PC side that's generating all the heat.
 
Re: LOL..another PC Idiot

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
Ummmm proof. There's a pdf from the Veritest that completely shows the configuration of the tested computers. FUD personified here.
Click to expand...

Actually the pdf clearly stated that the G5 system used a optimized high speed single threaded malloc library as well as some register tweaks (to reduce snoop times although this is somewhat acceptable since they used dual cpus). Regarding GCC, the GCC compiler used on the G5 (GCC 3.3 Build 1379) is specifically optimized for the G5 processing architecture whereas the GCC compiler used by the P4 (GCC 3.3) is the stock version. GCC as a whole, is quite poorly optimized for the P4.
 
Good info Cubeboy. That's the whole conundrum we have. Each compiler benefits a particular processor. To focus on the highest SPEC numbers solely would be to use the compiler on each platform that produces the highes SPEC numbers but not necessarily the highest performing software.

The best thing to do would have been to let Apple claim what they wanted and waited for Benchmarks. Yet the furor shown by some PC sites really borders on the rediculous. As a user of both platforms I can say that there will never be an absolute advantage for either Platform. PC users thought they had that but as we see ...the chasm between Hardware platforms can be erased very quickly.

It has always been my contention that designing good Software is a more difficult task than Hardware.

The G5 Motherboard is SWEET. Shiza..I thought Canterwood was decent but Apple really kicked azz on designing this Mobo. If it's reliable as it should be we have a nice platform for the next couple of years.
 
Originally posted by Spock
What is "Bologna"? Anyway people make these stupid benchmarks becouse they are insecure that their top of the line PC maybe slower than a Macintosh.
Click to expand...

Or vice versa ;)
 
Originally posted by nuckinfutz
Good info Cubeboy. That's the whole conundrum we have. Each compiler benefits a particular processor. To focus on the highest SPEC numbers solely would be to use the compiler on each platform that produces the highes SPEC numbers but not necessarily the highest performing software.

The best thing to do would have been to let Apple claim what they wanted and waited for Benchmarks. Yet the furor shown by some PC sites really borders on the rediculous. As a user of both platforms I can say that there will never be an absolute advantage for either Platform. PC users thought they had that but as we see ...the chasm between Hardware platforms can be erased very quickly.

It has always been my contention that designing good Software is a more difficult task than Hardware.

The G5 Motherboard is SWEET. Shiza..I thought Canterwood was decent but Apple really kicked azz on designing this Mobo. If it's reliable as it should be we have a nice platform for the next couple of years.
Click to expand...

That sums it up quite well, the PC community has blown this thing COMPLETELY out of proportions, any company will introduce a few benchmarks that will make their product look favorable, it just so happens that the entire pc community only gets all riled up about this when Apple does it. Personally I think the G5 is a great cpu, and the Powermac G5 could well be the fastest personal computer in the world, but I'll be basing my conclusions off of personal experience and third party reviews rather than benchmarketing. And your right, the G5 motherboard is definitely one kick a** motherboard.
 
overclockers.com... humm where have i heard that name before, oh ya it is this geek that lives here in massachusetts and i would not personally trust a word he says about macs, he is full of it. his only passion in life is to tweak out his pc with his water cooling system so that he can gain higher frame rates for his video games. seems to me that if a computer needs to be tweaked, then the computer is not all that it is suppose to be.
 
It's marketing, you talk up the best features to sell to the brainless sheep.

If you fall for it based on marketing alone, you deserve to get fleeced.

If everyone trusted the commercials, we'd all think the Hyundai is the best car in the world -- or for that matter that Dell is king of the world, and the Gateway needs steak sauce.
 
Re: LOL..another PC Idiot

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
GCC ,while being OpenSouce and perhaps not as efficient as Intels or IBMS compilers, runs on both platforms hence it's selection. sted computers. FUD personified here.
Click to expand...

hence the worthlessness of apple's benchmark. you're going to buy software that runs the best on your machine. if a benchmark is going to give you a realistic picture of performance, then both machines should use optimized software. The best fastest compiler for mac against same for intel.

the machines don't run the same OS, so why run the same compiler? Everyone knows Windows is faster than Linux, and OS X (in my personal experience.)

the issue will be over when G5s ship and people start using them.
 
Originally posted by tazo
I agree on both sides of the issue. I agree with mac users that macs are superior to pc's for the reliability and so forth that they offer. However I agree with the article in that it is true that Apple does hide intense details about their computers.

I guess I am just a moderate in this issue, a moderate on political topics, and a moderate person in reality.
Click to expand...

We're a secret society. Normal people who use Macs.
 
ive been quite intrigued by all these pc users. no more does cute cases, colors, computers named after a fruit, built in screens, and all of that matter anymore. strictly speed. it is normal for these people to bash macs, but whenever its about speeds its just, its slower. i have never seen so many pc peopel go out of their way and time to prove something wrong. i think most pc users are in denial that we pulled the rabbit out of the hat like this. but what i have noticed are the more educated pc users are giving apple credit, they had reasons for not liking apple and now they are taking it back. i hear many comments like i would consider this machine if it played my games, or whatever. then you have the typical pc users who arent so smart. for example, i was over at the americas army forum getting the latest info for aa for mac (comes out this month be prepared) and some guys already set up the mac bashing thread. so i went and checked it out. i finally found a post with reasons for bashing macs. they said they suck because the emacs and imacs are stuck with one monitor and we have only 1 button mine. damn it was funny, and i let them know. we may not shock them now (i think we already did) but i know that ibm roadmap is hella scary for the pc users unless amd and intel have got something up their sleves too.

iJon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back