or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's Benchmarks misleading?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's Benchmarks misleading?

post #1 of 179
Thread Starter 
The detractors are already at work.

http://www.haxial.com/spls-soapbox/apple-powermac-G5/
J.C. Corbin, Apple Certified Technical Coordinator
Member, Apple Consultants Network
www.ro3.com
Reply
J.C. Corbin, Apple Certified Technical Coordinator
Member, Apple Consultants Network
www.ro3.com
Reply
post #2 of 179
Meh. Apple used the graphs from the tests they liked, this guy used other graphs from the tests...it's almost as if the author expects truth in advertising.
post #3 of 179
All we have to do is wait and see if dell says anything or find out for ourselves when the g5 comes out.

Tests will always be skewed a little. It happens all the time.

I find it funny that one of this guys reasons that apple is misleading customers is the 2999 price tag whichis 1 dollar less than 3k to trick customes into thinking its not a 3k machine. Funny indeed.
You Can Say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one

------- John Lennon
Reply
You Can Say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one

------- John Lennon
Reply
post #4 of 179
Thread Starter 
And we must remember that not many folks make their living running benchmarks all day.

And that the high Dell scores he mentions are the result of using a tweaked Intel compiler - one designed for high benchmark results, hm?

Quite simply, the real-world speed is going to be the selling pointof these Macs.

Get some ads on TV showing Dad getting home in time for supper or Mom getting to bed before midnight, and the real message will sink in:
Macs let you get on with life.

Cheers
J.C. Corbin, Apple Certified Technical Coordinator
Member, Apple Consultants Network
www.ro3.com
Reply
J.C. Corbin, Apple Certified Technical Coordinator
Member, Apple Consultants Network
www.ro3.com
Reply
post #5 of 179
Thread Starter 
I don't like paying $1.499 for a gallon of gas, either. That extra 9/10s of a cent per gallon just burns me up.

Let's riot!
J.C. Corbin, Apple Certified Technical Coordinator
Member, Apple Consultants Network
www.ro3.com
Reply
J.C. Corbin, Apple Certified Technical Coordinator
Member, Apple Consultants Network
www.ro3.com
Reply
post #6 of 179
Quote:
To make matters even worse for Apple, Dell sells a faster version of the Dimension 8300 than the one that Apple tested. Apple tested a Dimension 8300 with a 3.0 GHz P4, but Dell also sells a 3.2 GHz P4.

Uhm, didn't Intel just launch that chip yesterday?
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #7 of 179
i don't think the benchmarks are really the important stats.
the most important is how much faster they are than what we own now.
i think it's obvious that most of us won't be buying pc's, so to compare them is like subaru comparing a WRX to a bmw M3.
not too relevant! the numbers never tell the whole story!
i don't care about the stats as long as it screams on OSX!
you can't have that on any pc, no matter the speed!
post #8 of 179
IBM's conservative estimates for its own compiler optimized Spec results for a 1.8 GHz PPC970 were 937/SpecInt and 1051/SpecFP.

Scale up those numbers for a 2 GHz part and I think the 970 is competitive, especially in respect to its power dissipation which is still less than your average Xeon, P4, Opteron, etc.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #9 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by mrmister
Meh. Apple used the graphs from the tests they liked, this guy used other graphs from the tests...it's almost as if the author expects truth in advertising.

The results from the Apple site are different because Apple is using a compiler called GCC, not the Intel compiler.
post #10 of 179
I hate to come in here with my "Facts" and "Logic", but the author of that page does not have a clue.

First, Apple stated that they used GCC 3.3, so as to level the playing field.

Second, and this is important: Using GCC 3.3 does *not* level the playing field.

For one, GCC is highly optimised for the x86 architecture. The author suggests otherwise, which is bullshit. What platform do all those
linux (FSF & GCC) developers use? If you guessed PC, you are correct. Through sheer numbers, there's probably 90% of GCC developers a) on PCs and
b) scrutinizing the code for x86 optimisation. What percent of said developers have PPC 970 workstations? Approximately 0%

Open source code of a magnitude of the (huge) Gnu Compiler Collection is all about numbers. The number of x86 developers is vastly greater than
the number of PPC developers (or Sparc, or MIPS, or Alpha), thus the x86 code is far, far more mature.

Second the P4 architecture has been around for YEARS. Thus, all those GCC developers have had all those years to tweak the relevant optimisation
code
for i686 (or whatever it's called). How long has the 970 portion of GCC 3.3 been around? months?! Thus, it is inevitable that the code
generated for PPC970s is less than perfect, even poor. Don't believe me? The GCC compiled code for all PPCs is reputed to be quite poor,
*especially* when compared to the binaries produced for x86.

Moreover, PPC in general, and 970s in particular are very much dependant on the compiler for speed. Much more so than for x86. Remember
Hannibal's articles on Ars about the 970? Optimising for the 970s scheduler makes or breaks the 970s performance. So how well do you think a 6
month old portion of GCC for a (then) vapourware chip, written by a small handful of IBM developers is going to fare?

The great thing about GCC, however, like all open-source projects with it's momentum, is that with time it will get much better. More eyes see
all bugs, or something like that.

I have a g4-based laptop running no less than three operating systems compiled w/ GCC (3.2), and I can tell you GCC produces poorly optimised
code for the G4, which has been around for years. And yes, I set my compiler flags.

OK, end of rant.

edit: forgive the fugly formatting, I'm posting from w3m (a text based web browser).
post #11 of 179
Intel uses their own especially for spec-tests tweakd compilers. Apple used the same compiler for every system. Apple is doing fair benchmarks.. the official spec-scores are quite misleading since every vendor supplies their own benchmarks, using whatever compiler they chose. AND.. they do not account for AltiVec.
post #12 of 179
the main thing that shows how much bullshit is in these benchmarks is that the dual processors are a lot slower than their single processors siblings in the real world this would show that the benchmarking software is not SMP ooptimised at all if it was would 2 engines be slower than one engine of exactly the same type
i am real!
Reply
i am real!
Reply
post #13 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
I hate to come in here with my "Facts" and "Logic", but the author of that page does not have a clue.

First, Apple stated that they used GCC 3.3, so as to level the playing field.

Second, and this is important: Using GCC 3.3 does *not* level the playing field.

For one, GCC is highly optimised for the x86 architecture. The author suggests otherwise, which is bullshit. What platform do all those
linux (FSF & GCC) developers use? If you guessed PC, you are correct. Through sheer numbers, there's probably 90% of GCC developers a) on PCs and
b) scrutinizing the code for x86 optimisation. What percent of said developers have PPC 970 workstations? Approximately 0%

Open source code of a magnitude of the (huge) Gnu Compiler Collection is all about numbers. The number of x86 developers is vastly greater than
the number of PPC developers (or Sparc, or MIPS, or Alpha), thus the x86 code is far, far more mature.

Second the P4 architecture has been around for YEARS. Thus, all those GCC developers have had all those years to tweak the relevant optimisation
code
for i686 (or whatever it's called). How long has the 970 portion of GCC 3.3 been around? months?! Thus, it is inevitable that the code
generated for PPC970s is less than perfect, even poor. Don't believe me? The GCC compiled code for all PPCs is reputed to be quite poor,
*especially* when compared to the binaries produced for x86.

Moreover, PPC in general, and 970s in particular are very much dependant on the compiler for speed. Much more so than for x86. Remember
Hannibal's articles on Ars about the 970? Optimising for the 970s scheduler makes or breaks the 970s performance. So how well do you think a 6
month old portion of GCC for a (then) vapourware chip, written by a small handful of IBM developers is going to fare?

The great thing about GCC, however, like all open-source projects with it's momentum, is that with time it will get much better. More eyes see
all bugs, or something like that.

I have a g4-based laptop running no less than three operating systems compiled w/ GCC (3.2), and I can tell you GCC produces poorly optimised
code for the G4, which has been around for years. And yes, I set my compiler flags.

OK, end of rant.

edit: forgive the fugly formatting, I'm posting from w3m (a text based web browser).

thanks for this contribution. I will add that the benchmarks with real applications show a much greater advantage for the G5 (twice as fast). There is PDF files avalaible on the apple site.

In other way isn't it logical that a 58 millions 64 bit chip RISC on SOI 0,13 with the fastest bus on the more advance PC mobo of the world, is the fastest PC ?

I said yes, without any doubt. It was logical that the G4 was behind. It's logical that the G5 rocks especially in the dual configuration (one Ghz bus for each processor compared to one shared 800 mhz bus for the dual Xeon).
post #14 of 179
i love this benchmarking but are these gcc tests optimised for 64bit computing or still 32bit?
btw: so what. it's it more important that it runs osx and, let's say: photoshop screamingly fast.

[very of topic mode on]
do you know what "dell" means in dutch? (well, okay, it's written differently but pronounced the same: del)
it means: slut.
so far for dells credibility
[very of topic mode off]
alles sal reg kom
Reply
alles sal reg kom
Reply
post #15 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
BIG, HUGE RANT

Thanks. Your comments make me feel a little better. I had forgotten about Intel-compiled SPEC tests.
Die Grüne Hölle - Gute Fahrt
Reply
Die Grüne Hölle - Gute Fahrt
Reply
post #16 of 179
Well it's a moot point. On a level playing field ie same software the G5 is faster. But this is not real world, in the real world, both processors would be intergrated into systems with code optimised for that processor.

Real world tests are what really count, so we will have to see what happens with Photoshop and Cinewave, and various Mpeg encoders etc.

there is no doubt the playing field has been leveled for most users.
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
post #17 of 179
i went to the "idiots" website and read what he had to say.
he say hes a macuser but had nothing good to say about macusers nor the new powermacs.
this is good!
for a long time apple could not legitamately challenge the wintel boxes.
now it can and the wintel dummies will come for us,watch and see.
yesterday was a glorious day in mac folklore,but i belive its only the beginning.
long live apple!!!!!!
post #18 of 179
It is disappointing that Apple *appears* to have cheated somewhat on the spec test. I would expect better from Apple than say, Gateway. Who compared Quake 3 on a Gateway to Quake 3 running in Classic on an iMac.

But if anyone is surprised by this, I've got news for you. Of course Apple's benchmarks are going to be bias somehow. They want to sell Macs, not provide a fair and honest comparison for the consumer.

Barto
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
post #19 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
I hate to come in here with my "Facts" and "Logic", but the author of that page does not have a clue.

First, Apple stated that they used GCC 3.3, so as to level the playing field.

Second, and this is important: Using GCC 3.3 does *not* level the playing field.

For one, GCC is highly optimised for the x86 architecture. The author suggests otherwise, which is bullshit. What platform do all those
linux (FSF & GCC) developers use? If you guessed PC, you are correct. Through sheer numbers, there's probably 90% of GCC developers a) on PCs and
b) scrutinizing the code for x86 optimisation. What percent of said developers have PPC 970 workstations? Approximately 0%

Open source code of a magnitude of the (huge) Gnu Compiler Collection is all about numbers. The number of x86 developers is vastly greater than
the number of PPC developers (or Sparc, or MIPS, or Alpha), thus the x86 code is far, far more mature.

Second the P4 architecture has been around for YEARS. Thus, all those GCC developers have had all those years to tweak the relevant optimisation
code
for i686 (or whatever it's called). How long has the 970 portion of GCC 3.3 been around? months?! Thus, it is inevitable that the code
generated for PPC970s is less than perfect, even poor. Don't believe me? The GCC compiled code for all PPCs is reputed to be quite poor,
*especially* when compared to the binaries produced for x86.

Moreover, PPC in general, and 970s in particular are very much dependant on the compiler for speed. Much more so than for x86. Remember
Hannibal's articles on Ars about the 970? Optimising for the 970s scheduler makes or breaks the 970s performance. So how well do you think a 6
month old portion of GCC for a (then) vapourware chip, written by a small handful of IBM developers is going to fare?

The great thing about GCC, however, like all open-source projects with it's momentum, is that with time it will get much better. More eyes see
all bugs, or something like that.

I have a g4-based laptop running no less than three operating systems compiled w/ GCC (3.2), and I can tell you GCC produces poorly optimised
code for the G4, which has been around for years. And yes, I set my compiler flags.

OK, end of rant.

edit: forgive the fugly formatting, I'm posting from w3m (a text based web browser).

I'll Drink to that
post #20 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by Addison
But this is not real world, in the real world, both processors would be intergrated into systems with code optimised for that processor.

Actually, no. In the real world, the system that runs on the P4 is designed to run on anything from a Pentium II 133 MHz. The system that runs on the G5 is designed to run on an original iMac (G3 233 Mhz)

Apple's "cheating" by replacing the malloc library is strange, but probably not significant. The specint tests have long been ridiculed for concentrating on raw number-crunching at the expense of system-related services like memory allocation and paging.

Intel, on the other hand, probably used a special compiler that produces code that will not run on a P3. No vendor in his right mind would do that. Even the latest games are compiled so that they at least work on earlier pentia.

The Mathematica test is pretty convincing. They always try to optimize and they are a good example of real-world performance.

At the end of the day, I'm not interested in Steve's pissing contest with Intel. It's enough for me that we have a computer that performs well enough. The G5 delivers on that requirement.
post #21 of 179
The author of the haxial.com report is hippocritical: he blames apple for pushing their own machine's tests, but then compares the G5 with banechmarks of AMD and Intel processors that were done by AMD and Intel, (in that order).
post #22 of 179
It's the real world tests. Get mac app, get PC, face off.

It's pretty clear that the top end PPC now handily smokes the top end wintel, untill we see some Athlon64 numbers... Still, if I'm spending 2000-3000 on a photoshop or film or 3d animation rig, then the PM G5 gets my money. In the 1000-1500 range it's a harder call, and the PC offers more bang for the buck, but at 1299, the single 1.25Ghz G4 with L3 is not too shabby either.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #23 of 179
The thing with Logic really impressed me.
post #24 of 179
Um....the PC's were SLAUGHTERED in the bake-offs (who'd a figured?). People make living running the programs used in THOSE tests. How many people make a living flogging a machine through a suite of benchmak tests?

Sounds like sour grapes. Apple (finally) has a no-nonsense chip with room to grow and some people's fragile worlds are collapsing.
Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face? - Jack D. Ripper
Reply
Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face? - Jack D. Ripper
Reply
post #25 of 179
there is more here:

http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1296


http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.c...id=1296&page=2


SPECint rate and SPECfp rate scores that Apple provided for the G5 were 2P scores._ The P4 of course could not be tested in 2P mode, but the Xeon was._ Things look good for Apple's own SPEC benchmarks of the Xeon and P4 until you pan up at the official SPEC scores._ So which one is correct?_ The Apple scores or the ones on SPEC's site._ My money is with SPEC._ The difference is ridiculously large, and far too much for me to believe without some form of evidence._ There was no 1.7GHz Power4 to compare against in this test, but the 2P Opteron blows away the faster MHz G5.

So what is the true story of G5 performance?_ It certainly greatly improves on the G4, but I doubt we will ever find that out from Apple what true performance against modern PCs is. When they trotted out Adobe as a benchmark I tuned out._ Their ability to bend Photoshop benchmarks to suite their performance needs is legendary._ I wanted to hold out hope for Apple's PowerPC offering, but Jobs lies and stretches do a disservice to IBM and their powerful CPU._ This type of show from Apple may keep them pegged at 1.9% marketshare, but the sweet spot for real desktops is firmly below the$1,000 mark._ The PowerPC G5 system will allow Apple to hang onto what is left of their share, but they throw logic out the window with their over the top presentation that misleads, distorts facts, and leaves serious questions about actual performance._ Apple would do well to bring back clones and give Jobs the boot._ Here's hoping they do so they can regain marketshare and offer real competition to Microsoft, and further pressure on Intel._ Hand the real thanks to IBM and all of the borrowed PC technology._ That is what is allowing Apple to survive.




Those bench marks looks convincing to me, Apple Cheated on their specs and bechmark tests and I feel deceived by a cheat slight of hand dog and pony show carnival trick! (in the keynote demonstration)


-tom w
post #26 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
It's the real world tests. Get mac app, get PC, face off.

It's pretty clear that the top end PPC now handily smokes the top end wintel, untill we see some Athlon64 numbers... Still, if I'm spending 2000-3000 on a photoshop or film or 3d animation rig, then the PM G5 gets my money. In the 1000-1500 range it's a harder call, and the PC offers more bang for the buck, but at 1299, the single 1.25Ghz G4 with L3 is not too shabby either.

[a little of topic again]
when i saw the prices of the G5 yesterday, i thought matsu would be pissed of and complaining about the $1999.00 pricetag of the low end. the 1.25Ghz G4 SP at $1299.00 would probally be $300.00 to much...
but that didn't happen.
so i will:

the lowend G5 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to expensive, even the 1.8Ghz is a better option, no wait, the 2.0Ghz dp is the best deal...

oh well, wait the minute. back in august 2002, almost everybody who bought a powermac, bought the low end 867Mhz dp because that was the best bang for buck. now apple squeezed the specs of the low end G5 that much and give it a "confusing" pricetag of $1999.00. very close to the "better" option. in the netherlands the good/better difference is just 190 euroos. what would you buy? the better option i guess.
also this "high" pricetag of the low end gives lots of space for other products in the consumer matrix to find a comfortable place even though they're not (yet) upgraded to a G5
alles sal reg kom
Reply
alles sal reg kom
Reply
post #27 of 179
I do not know enough to comment on all the technical merits of this argument; I do however know, that reading the comments at the bottom of his critique made me, for the first time ever, thoroughly ashamed to be a Mac user.

post #28 of 179
Imagine, people who never posted before, suddenly posting about how apple lied... yet, they never really even paid attention to what kind of tests run and how they were compiled...... all you morons go FUD somewhere else.
post #29 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by scotio
I do not know enough to comment on all the technical merits of this argument; I do however know, that reading the comments at the bottom of his critique made me, for the first time ever, thoroughly ashamed to be a Mac user.


No need. The numbers at the SPEC site are skewed, 'unfair.' It's the way things go.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #30 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by Barto
It is disappointing that Apple *appears* to have cheated somewhat on the spec test. I would expect better from Apple than say, Gateway. Who compared Quake 3 on a Gateway to Quake 3 running in Classic on an iMac.
Barto

I dont understand why you feel that Apple cheated on the SPEC test. Not that I give a wilted patunia's rear about SPEC test or any other benchmark out there. I dont run benchmarks on my computer, but rather I do work on it. Apple took a $4K Dell system and kicked its rear with a $3K system. It doesnt get any simpler than that as far as I am concerned.
post #31 of 179

don't ever try to battle your enemy on it's own ground
if you use their tactics, even though you're better, you always lose because the place is not yours, go home.
use your own tactics on your own playing field and if you're better or not you win.
alles sal reg kom
Reply
alles sal reg kom
Reply
post #32 of 179
Yawn. Spec junkies. Spec doesn't take SIMD units into account.

As Matsu says. Let's get the Apps and run'em. That'll tell you all you need to know. There are too many shady things going on for me to trust Spec %100
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #33 of 179
Well personally I don't believe any of the marketing crap spewed out by Apple OR Intel/AMD. I look more to independent websites/mags for my info. The problem on the mac side is finding an unbiased mac source (admitting that I'm relatively new to the mac side). All the mac magazines, aka macworld and macaddict, seem to just repeat what apple claims/says. Hell, reading macworld makes me think the writers work for apple (and why is it I get a subscription for just registering an apple product...i have like 4 subscriptions now) Anyway, the PC world is obviously more biased to the PC side but because the don't have to "fight" for the platform they can come out against stuff like the AMD rating or post specific benchmarks with real world apps providing the truth behind the AMD/intel debate.
These are all just observations. In the end, I don't care about who is the fastest because PC's don't run mac OS X, and that was the real star yesterday.
Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of... -TMBG
Reply
Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of... -TMBG
Reply
post #34 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by Henriok
Intel uses their own especially for spec-tests tweakd compilers. Apple used the same compiler for every system. Apple is doing fair benchmarks.. the official spec-scores are quite misleading since every vendor supplies their own benchmarks, using whatever compiler they chose. AND.. they do not account for AltiVec.

Pixar uses Intel's especially for spec-tests tweakd compiler for Rendeman on x86, go figure... Face it, gcc is a slow compiler on both platforms, but Apples bigest crime in its number is useing tha NAGware compiler for the SPECfpu. Linux is alot slower on some things than the same task in Windows, you want proof? check out specview. Under windows, Discreet's Lustre can play 2k real-time, can't do it under Linux. I can't wait for somebody to get there hands on these new G5's for some REAL benchmarks

regards

a.
post #35 of 179
for the people who claim that the G5 is behind the opteron or the P4, i will like to hear how is it possible.

The G5 top at 2 ghz, like the opteron supposed to top (but did not suceed it for the moment) it's build upon SOI ,013 8 layers (best fab process of the moment) , has 58 millions transistors, 12 process units, the best bus of the PC market, 225 instructions in fligh , until 5 operations per cycle (compared to 3 for the 7455).
X 86 processor are a waste of transistors, because they need a huge decode unit at the contrary of the G5, and they did not have a SIMD unit as efficient as the G5.

The G5 is full SMP, at the contrary of the Xeon who shared the same bus.

The G5 is on the more modern mobo of the time, with 128 wide (and not dual channel) 400 mhz DDR ram, with hypertransport link, Sata disk, PCI-X slots.

IBM and Apple must suck terribely if with such features , they canno't compare with the X-86 world.
post #36 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by anthrax
I can't wait for somebody to get there hands on these new G5's for some REAL benchmarks

regards

a.


I agree with that!

-tom w
post #37 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by geekmeet
i went to the "idiots" website and read what he had to say.
he say hes a macuser but had nothing good to say about macusers nor the new powermacs.
this is good!
for a long time apple could not legitamately challenge the wintel boxes.
now it can and the wintel dummies will come for us,watch and see.
yesterday was a glorious day in mac folklore,but i belive its only the beginning.
long live apple!!!!!!

Yeah I thought that was telling also. Every so often and at the end he slips into this " Macuser's are fanatics " mode. Pretty strange for Macuser. Not so strange for someone trying to prove something that they've already made up their mind about.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #38 of 179
wow my first post, but i think people look for too much in it all. as was stated earlier a few times no benchmarking, especially synthetic is good to judge to different computer products. hell, like nvidia who was engineering their drivers to score better in 3dmark tests. maybe it's the fastest pc in the world. maybe it's not. Depending on what you do youll find a reason for a computer to be best for the work. I know guys who program vhf radios who have to use an old pentium 90 rig. new machines won't communicate.

The G5 is faster tahn the G4, and has room to grow which I can't say for motorola as from my experience inother fields they suck ass.

wait till you see how much the system bus increases rendering and video processing.
post #39 of 179
Another item I'm looking at in this regard. I've seen a lot less detractors than I thought I would from the Wintel side. Perhaps this says something.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #40 of 179
Thread Starter 
I don't think Apple cheated.

They clearly published exactly what was used, and how. That they used products that may, MAY, have skewed the results in their favor is not a crime (Otherwise MSFT would be buried, burned).

The writer of the haxial blog seems to think that this is wrong. His opinion, and he can keep it (Exactly which bodily orifice I'd choose to plant it in is a different story).

I do wish that there were production G5s out there for people to test real-world performance.
J.C. Corbin, Apple Certified Technical Coordinator
Member, Apple Consultants Network
www.ro3.com
Reply
J.C. Corbin, Apple Certified Technical Coordinator
Member, Apple Consultants Network
www.ro3.com
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's Benchmarks misleading?