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

Apple's Benchmarks misleading? - Page 2

post #41 of 179
I'm actually looking forward to a mag like PC world putting it through its paces. They've actually been giving macs a pretty fair shake lately.

Also, who gives a rat's ass about SPEC?
I mean, apple can rig things to a certain extent in the application tests I'm sure. But when the G5 smokes the competition THAT much, in THAT many programs, there's something to it.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #42 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by Flounder
I'm actually looking forward to a mag like PC world putting it through its paces. They've actually been giving macs a pretty fair shake lately.

Also, who gives a rat's ass about SPEC?
I mean, apple can rig things to a certain extent in the application tests I'm sure. But when the G5 smokes the competition THAT much, in THAT many programs, there's something to it.

By the time these G5's are ACTUALLY released in Sept 03 and we see an indepentant benchmark test in the unbiased Oct PC magazines the New Apple G5s WILL NOT BE THE FASTEST personal computers, nor will they give the best bang for the buck nor will they have the best speed to cost ratio. (This is normal for Apple)

I am a HUGE Mac fan, but I don't appreciate deceptive marketing practices and fudging benchmark tests to claim to have the worlds fastest PC. The G5 is not the fastest PC right now and it for sure won't be when it is released this fall.

BUT I still WANT one !

-tom w
post #43 of 179
from the article:

Both Apple and Dell are guilty of using misleading prices. For example, Apple gives the price of the low-end G5 as "$1999", and the high-end G5 as "$2999". In other words, they have subtracted $1 from a $3000 computer to make it seem cheaper, which is absolutely ridiculous. This demonstrates that both Apple and Dell are willing to mislead people when stating their prices.

omfg! thats rediculous! that practice has been done since the beginning of ****ing time. wow
post #44 of 179
agreed. real-world tests will count for most users. give me cinema 4d (or cinebench), lightwave, photoshop, after effects and cubase sx specs. all 3rd party, cross platform apps which many of us depend on for our livelihoods.

for me cinema 4d and photoshop results alone will swing any purchasing decisions i have in the next six months, for work or home. I believe the g5 has largely levelled the playing field, and having Altivec (a bloody good SIMD unit) onboard could give a massive performance boost, either from existing G4 or intel processors. i just hope that, for the sake of developers and the platform in general, Apple really have made it easy to use altivec, and to recompile for 64 bits. i appreciate that many developers have been slow to grasp the benefits of altivec, especially if they are recompiling code from x86 and the necessary hooks aren't there for vector processing. apple's evangelism of altivec, and soon for the importance of 64bit native apps for certain sectors will be crucial to really see the potential of the g5 architecture.

i'm glad to see Wolfram in the fore of development ... that Theo dude was a class-act geek onstage and they are passionate about running their code fast and efficiently. it's just lucky they have a long relationship with apple. i expect other developers with long histories of developing apps on multiple platforms, such as maxon, to reap early results by optimising their existing codebase for the new boxes.

Just remember, SPEC results only ever tell part of the story.... no matter what way you read 'em
Nothing but sunshine, it's all sunshine ....
Reply
Nothing but sunshine, it's all sunshine ....
Reply
post #45 of 179
detractor? So anyone who disagrees with Apple marketing is a troll or idiot? There is a reason why many people think Mac users are ignorant fanatics so some people in this thread illustrates this.

For years, Steve tells us that megahertz is not important yet he shows G4 trouncing P4 in certain benchmarks. Most professionals dismissed that but some people still swears by them.

Now G5 is on the scene, Steve is now saying megahertz is important and he shows G5 trouncing Xeon. So BOTH G4 and G5 are faster than their Intel counterparts? I do not believe that for a second.

In addition, he is comparing a system that will not ship in three months versus one that is shipped three (or more) months ago. If anyone in the PC did that we would cry wolf but when Steve does it, it's OK?

And why no comparison to AMD chips? The Itanium? The Opteron? How about the 800Mhz FSB P4 with HT (not those that were announced yesterday but that would be fair too) that are faster than the single P4 used for the demo ?

I see that more and more dispute to Apple's benchmark will come in the next few days and definitely after the system ships.

Hey Steve: Just let us know that OS X will be running on a much much better hardware OK!?
One iMac G5, one iPod, many PCs.
Reply
One iMac G5, one iPod, many PCs.
Reply
post #46 of 179
Why wasn't the latest G4 included in the test too? I, for one, would have liked to see what performance boost I would get from a current machine on the apple side. I guess they were gearing it for the small percentage of PC people watching the keynote? Or just fueling the fire?
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 #47 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by klinux
detractor? So anyone who disagrees with Apple marketing is a troll or idiot? There is a reason why many people think Mac users are ignorant fanatics so some people in this thread illustrates this.

For years, Steve tells us that megahertz is not important yet he shows G4 trouncing P4 in certain benchmarks. Most professionals dismissed that but some people still swears by them.

Now G5 is on the scene, Steve is now saying megahertz is important and he shows G5 trouncing Xeon. So BOTH G4 and G5 are faster than their Intel counterparts? I do not believe that for a second.

In addition, he is comparing a system that will not ship in three months versus one that is shipped three (or more) months ago. If anyone in the PC did that we would cry wolf but when Steve does it, it's OK?

And why no comparison to AMD chips? The Itanium? The Opteron? How about the 800Mhz FSB P4 with HT (not those that were announced yesterday but that would be fair too) that are faster than the single P4 used for the demo ?

I see that more and more dispute to Apple's benchmark will come in the next few days and definitely after the system ships.

Hey Steve: Just let us know that OS X will be running on a much much better hardware OK!?

YES

I am a Mac fan, but I am not fanatic.

I loath the Windoze OS and I am not a fan of the M$ /Gates marketing practices, but I am ever more disgusted that Apple/Jobs would attempt to deceive the party faithful with cheap parlor tricks to show he is now sporting the fastest PC.

I agree with the above post, klinux makes a great point there are PC's shipping right now that are faster than the soon to be DP G5. But Jobs did not test his latest creation agains the "AMD chips? The Itanium? The Opteron? How about the 800Mhz FSB P4 with HT "

Well I guess the speculation is just begining as to how the G5's will perform when tested by unbiased labs and testers in the fall.

-tom w
post #48 of 179
I'm just glad Apple got to the point where we can argue about this stuff. Better to have a mixed victory than a clear lose.
post #49 of 179
All this is complete crap! Face it,was there any test apple could have run on that stage that pc nuts or paranoid apple fans would have accepted as truth? And you are griping about spec for crying out loud! That @#^% test is infamous for underreporting the real performance of the ppc and exagerating the performance of x86-especially intel.Hell,spec underreports the real world performance of the athalon and p3 relative to the p4.If spec was the final word on performance the G4 would be only as fast as a similar clocked p4! And this is absolute rubbish-no i am not talking abt altivec either.The test is too compiler dependent and ripe for cheating-and I suspect the test was never actually fair to begin with considering intel's undue influence in the industry.The only reason they showed spec scores was because the 970 is so powerful it can overcome some of the bias inherent in the suit.
post #50 of 179
I don't know if these have been posted, but they provide a lot of pertinant information.

G5 White Paper - test methods mostly

G5 White Paper - techs on the G5 Computer

G5 White Paper - techs on the IBM 970

Maybe some people could construe Apple's results on spec as being skewed, because of the compiler used, but this is how the game is played.

But the application results are pretty damn apparent. Apple used 45 effects in their 100 step Photoshop bakeoff. Maybe slightly in their favor, but people THE DUAL 2.0GHz. MACHINE WAS TWICE AS FAST. Let me repeat TWICE AS FAST. There is NO AMOUNT OF SKEWING that can lead me to believe that the new Apple computer isn't the fastest.

The Mathmatica backoff is even more telling. AGAIN over twice as fast.

Just for grins they threw in Blast, highly optimized for Altivec and well just read the results.

Look up the new Quicktime movie that has the Apple team, with Adobe and Mathmatica reps on it. This is the real deal, and it has only just begun.

Holy crap 3.0GHz next year, believe it. We aren't dealing with Motorola anymore. IBM believes in this tech, is guarding their server turf from interlopers and they intend to win.

For years Windows fans have flaunted spec scores over Apple, well so what. All this proves is that the compilers used in spec benchs can have a more significant effect on the scores than the cpu's architecture - phewy forget spec. I don't run spec on my computer, it doesn't do anything, nothing nadda. NO ONE MAKES A LIVING RUNNING SPEC EXECPT SPEC.

me take deep breath, calms down, rant over. you may now return to bashing Apple for playing Intels game at spec bs.

have a nice day

just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #51 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by klinux
For years, Steve tells us that megahertz is not important yet he shows G4 trouncing P4 in certain benchmarks. Most professionals dismissed that but some people still swears by them.

Now G5 is on the scene, Steve is now saying megahertz is important and he shows G5 trouncing Xeon.

MHz important? The G5 still shows that MHz isn't everything.
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 #52 of 179
I agree considering the G5 processor is 1 GHz less than the 3 GHz Xeon!
"One By One The Penguins Steal My Sanity"
Reply
"One By One The Penguins Steal My Sanity"
Reply
post #53 of 179
Current Hardware....
I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
post #54 of 179
I think this is all good. The potential switchers in the PC camp finally have a formidable Apple hardware option and Panther should make it even tougher to resist. PC users that take hardware components into consideration, will certainly realize that the new G5 pricing scheme is fair and attractive to say the least. Apple is a top of the line manufacturer and well known for its quality offerings. Mediocre performance is certainly a thing of the past now.

Some PC zealots are running like crazy trying to dismiss and shoot down 970/G5 speed claims, mainly due to the fact that their (PC) speed king throne probably has or will be abolished soon. Independent real world tests should be around in weeks, and I have no doubts we are in for a pleasant surprise.

On the other hand, Spec tests mean nothing to consumers, compared to MHz and princing. I don't think these tests should have taken the center stage during Jobs' keynote, but after all, it was WWDC. I also think Apple's new marketing efforts should steer away from the Specs thingie, because it only seems to confuse the facts. The MHz rating (myth) is what really counts to consumers and it seems that IBM will be able to shorten that gap sooner than expected. Apple has realized this and will no doubt address this in the near future given its new processor options. I expect consumer towers sporting a single G5 with top speed ratings and some components shortcomings for similar prices to their PC counterparts at any given MHz rating.

The G4 and Motorola's manufacturing issues were hurting Apple badly, image and performance wise. That chapter seems to be over. For good. Welcome to the new performance leader. Speed and computing experience beyond anything else on the market.
post #55 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by JLL
MHz important? The G5 still shows that MHz isn't everything.

You are correct. I should have said "speed" in the general term.

But yes, what would have truly impressed me is a G5 to G4 benchmark.

Also, for real-world benchmarking, I like how Tom's Hardware does it in that it tests five areas and I think that is fair to people who use the machines for game vs AV vs work etc.

# OpenGL Benchmarks
# Direct3D Benchmarks
# Audio/Video Benchmarks
# Applications Benchmarks
# Synthetic Benchmarks


Lastly, by the time the G5 ships, Intel will likely have their 90nm Prescott CPU ready (the so-called Pentium 5) and we will have 16 threads every other week covering PC vs Mac speed. Oy!

All I really want is the G5 (the middle one).
One iMac G5, one iPod, many PCs.
Reply
One iMac G5, one iPod, many PCs.
Reply
post #56 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by cuneglasus
All this is complete crap! Face it,was there any test apple could have run on that stage that pc nuts or paranoid apple fans would have accepted as truth?

The crux of the argument here isn't whether or not SPEC is a good test or not, but that Apple is intentionally misleading in their claims.

I find nothing wrong with the Haxial website, and what he's done. He hasn't taken Apple at face value, and checked the facts. What's wrong with that? I don't believe he's 100% correct, but checking facts is A Good Thing™.

Others have pointed out that companies play this game a lot. nVidia was just in the news regarding their drivers, for example. In the Register's article, they were at least complementing Apple (sort of) for posting their test methods, while they're not entirely sure of Dell's methods.

So while I think it's valid to question Apple's "Fastest Computer" claim, at the end of the day, do you want one of these whether or not it's truly the fastest?

Of course you do. Unless you're Clive.
Die Grüne Hölle - Gute Fahrt
Reply
Die Grüne Hölle - Gute Fahrt
Reply
post #57 of 179
I want to see the benchmarks with 64bit optimized code.
A 64bit Cpu running a 32bit app isn't running at its maximum. When it does we can compare the G5 (or 970 etc) with Itanic.

The benchmarks should also include more relevant things like boot times, app opening times etc. Thats something I can relate to.

Dobby.
post #58 of 179
The GCC comparison is valid in that it would seem to show that a G5 is faster running code compiled with GCC 3.3 than a P4 or Xeon is running code compiled with GCC.

Some people say that this is misleading. It can be somewhat misleading, unless you are a linux developer and you use GCC to compile your software, in which case it is very relevant to you.

Even if people don't believe the SPEC benchmarks (and like all benchmarks, they should be taken with caution because nobody's benchmarks are clean), then do believe the head of development for Wolfram when he says that the G5 rocks. He has no motivation to lie.

Folks, the G5 is a kick ass machine. I am sure that there are some scenarios where the P4 beats it. I am sure that there are many scenarios where the G5 beats Intel.
King Felix
Reply
King Felix
Reply
post #59 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by Yevgeny
Folks, the G5 is a kick ass machine.

© "the G5 is a kick ass machine" is copyright 2003 Apple Computer Inc.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #60 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by GardenOfEarthlyDelights
The crux of the argument here isn't whether or not SPEC is a good test or not, but that Apple is intentionally misleading in their claims.

Everyone lies with their claims. Everybody. No exceptions. Or, perhaps better stated, everyone stretches the truth of their claims. This is standard industry practice. It is called marketing. Apple was kind enough to do it in a transparent way.

Last week, I posted the progression of lies in the software business (common knowledge at the company that I work at):

Lies
Damn Lies
Statistics
Benchmarks
Hardware release dates
Software release dates

Really folks, benchmarks are only more truthful than hardware and software release dates.
King Felix
Reply
King Felix
Reply
post #61 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
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.

The G5 mobo DOES use dual-channel DDR memory, and that's a good thing.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #62 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by Eugene
The G5 mobo DOES use dual-channel DDR memory, and that's a good thing.

You are right, my mistake, i have corrected it in an another thread but miss that one.
post #63 of 179
As far as I'm concerned, I'm glad as heck that we are in the performance ballpark with Intel based computers. AND, while running a whole 1GHz slower! To me, this says a lot in regards to the design of the 970 and the new G5 powermacs.
post #64 of 179
remember back when apple was the first to break the 300 mhz barrier?

apple had the fastest computer in the world
post #65 of 179
wow alot of people get really heated in here. as for the post about it being taken into comparison to itanium and opteron machines. those are server and workstation chips. They said desktop. I know many avid amd fans and they don't own an opteron rig they wait for the athlon 64.. amd is the king of paper releases and delays so really as for now i think what apple is doing is fine. everyone lies, skews the truth sh ows the benchmarks it wins at. big deal. If you want an apple the g5 is faster, if y ou don't want an apple or want a pc tahts fine too. go buy one and live with windows and it's integrated webbrowser which is no longer a standalone client. i really don't care. I;ve been using pc's for a few years now and really i dont give a $hit if the g5 isnt the fastest when i get it. it will be enough for me.

it's your money, anyway you spend it on computers is a waste.
post #66 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by BLeST


it's your money, anyway you spend it on computers is a waste.

OK!!

I think we can all agree on that.

Good post to put things a little more into perspective.

"it's your money, anyway you spend it on computers is a waste"

8)
that could be a good signature line
but I am too lazy to paste it into my profile.

-tom w
post #67 of 179
Just in case this thread is not contentious enough there is MORE here:

http://www.overclockers.com/tips00408/


"Documenting the Dung"
Ed Stroligo - 6/24/03
------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Even in today's world, there's some things you can always count on. The sun shows up every day. The earth revolves around the sun.

And Apple comes up with some nonsense that whatever it just came out with is faster than x86 processors.

Apple just announced its new systems. These are what I call the MacHammer systems, simply because they are at least superficially rather alike. They both use SOI, both have a 32/64-bit architecture, and both run at around the same speed.

Anyway, Apple presented some numbers to indicate that the G5 is faster than the PIV or Xeon in single and dual-CPU configurations. These measurement included Spec2000 measurements.

Spec2000 is a platform-independent benchmark often used to compare the CPU performance of different platforms. Manufacturers submit their scores to Spec for posting on their website. You can see the lastest posting of results here.

Anyone familiar with recent x86 spec scores would have smelled something rotten; the x86 scores presented by Apple were just too low. Chris Tom from AMDZone has already taken the official spec scores and written an article about it "


snip.....
(see charts and graphs on web page from link posted above )

"No Credibility

If Apple were part of the x86 market, they'd be ripped to shreds in a second presenting this kind of data. It would be a huge scandal. PC companies get torn a new one for attempting even a small fraction of what we have here.

But it's a different world in Macdom. The average Macster is woefully ignorant of hardware, and tends to believe anything and everything Apple tells him. For many, it is guru and flock.

This is not an honest business, but nobody in the PC world has ever approached Apple in the level of sheer and consistent technically accurate but totally misleading information when it comes to performance.

It's really a shame. I thought the G5 would be pretty good. From what I can figure out, it isn't, and I don't trust the company to tell the honest truth for the rest of it.

P.S. I've seen some pretty bizarre defenses of Apple so far. One said that the scores from Dell et. al. weren't proper because those machines were tweaked. Uhhh, just what did Apple did, they even said so deep in the fine print. What's fairer, measuring tweaked machine to tweaked machine, or tweaked machine to non-tweaked machine.

Another said that some version of Linux had to be used to compare apples to apples. Well, MacOS X isn't Linux, and the desktop standard for x86 machines is Windows (not that using a properly optimized Linux bothered the Opterons very much). You want to know what machine is fastest, you test in their native environment.

"
post #68 of 179
A friend will help you move, but a REAL FRIEND will help you move a body.
Reply
A friend will help you move, but a REAL FRIEND will help you move a body.
Reply
post #69 of 179
sounds like apple's reply is really taking the wind out of some sails in regards to their "cheating"
post #70 of 179
Thread Starter 
Klinux,

The writer was being a detractor.

What part of that is hard to understand? He even says as much.

Rub some orajel on that sensitive spot.
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 #71 of 179
jccbin: Sure, I will rub some Orajel on it which still doesn't change the fact you prefer to remain blissfully ignorant and will take anything Apple says at fair value.
One iMac G5, one iPod, many PCs.
Reply
One iMac G5, one iPod, many PCs.
Reply
post #72 of 179
First off Klinux. I would restrain from using the word "ignorant" unless you know the people you are talking about on an individual basis. I take offense to being called ignorant just because I disagree with all that you're saying. You know nothing of my educational background or anything else about me. I am a Mac enthusiast but I'm not an apologist for Apple.

Secondly. I don't care much about benchmarks any more than the gamers that I have talked to care about 3DMark tests. However, having read the detailed article on Ars Technica about the 970, I am not surprised by the Apple benchmarks. The article pretty much predicts the results. In particular the integer results in comparison to the P4 ISA. Logical reasons are given as to how they might perform in general compared to one another. The key is bandwidth and I think that the difference there is born out in the SMP tests.

Having said that. Being a video professional I find real world application comparisons more useful. I would like to know exactly how there was a cheat in the Photoshop tests as this is the first I have heard of this charge. An identical script of actions played on both machines is a perfectly good way to do a comparison. Yes, it's true that compiler differences can pop up just as easily in real apps but that isn't the point. Adobe doesn't allow you to recompile Photoshop or After Effects with the compiler of your choice. You get what you get. Professionals or semi Pro/hobbyists and gamers are the only ones that REALLY need to be this concerned about speed. I saw with my own eyes what was done with Photoshop in those demos and I'm convinced.

I don't care how a Wintelhead or anyone else twists or optimizes. What the big venders supply is what people use.

A word about GCC. I don't know a lot about it but it seems that it surely has benefited just as other open source ventures have, from Apple input. So how optimized GCC is for PPC at this point I think is not as well known as people may think. Ask someone that works on the project if you care, would be my suggestion.
post #73 of 179
Want to know what a "PC"* user thinks? If not I'll bugger off.

* I consider the Mac a PC too.. so it's hard to come up with a name other than "non-mac". Oh well.
post #74 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by alcimedes
sounds like apple's reply is really taking the wind out of some sails in regards to their "cheating"

Most of the PC sites are dismissing it and calling Joswiak an idiot. I think what Apple did was fair and they aren't trying to deceive anyone (they provided full disclosure"). I guess the guys at AMDZone and Overclockers feel threatened now that Apple has competitive hardware and see this as an opportunity to raise hell. I hope Apple continues to push the issue and publishes some more benchmarks. It might shut them up.
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
post #75 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by jccbin
I don't think Apple cheated.

I've changed my mind. I don't think Apple have cheated either. The SSE2 issue was ignorance on the part of the accuser, the optimisation switches will be turned on by default in the final G5 and both computers are using the GCC complier.

Apple finally builds a machine that thrashes PC, and what do insecure PC users do? "Apple sucks, it must be a hoax!"

The benchmarks are misleading in that they do not include important information (ie the dell is running linux) next to the benchmarks, and Apple will of course only ever show positive benchmarks.

However, what's the big deal? Did any of you honestly believe a DP 500 is two times faster most of the time than a Pentium 4 based on a benchmark testing a few photoshop actions?

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 #76 of 179
The AMD and Intel detractors can have their day for the present time. I for one look forward to the delivery of the G5.

One thing is for sure. IBM is back and ready to extract vengeance. The Apple tweaks aside, in another year, the PowerPC will simply dominate. No amount of Intel or AMD tweaks will be able to overcome the sheer performance built into the PowerPC processors.

Intel was there before with the delivery of the G3. Unfortunately, this time they have OS X to also contend with.

It makes one wonder where Apple would be if they had worked more seriously with IBM in the first place instead of going with Motorola and Altivec.

From what I understand, the bus speed of the G5 runs at 1/2 processor speed. So a 3 GHz 970 would have a bus of 1.5 GHz. I am not at all certain that AMD and Intel will be able to duplicate this.

Real world performance is the key in all things. We will have to wait for the machines to ship to identify the true performance. However, I don't see fantastic improvement in the Intel/AMD side of processor market by the time these machines ship. I am not even sure that we'll see large quantities of available Athlon 64 processors either.

I am certain that IBM is moving to produce faster processors as quickly as they can also. In essence, by the time these machines ship, Apple might have plans for shipping 2.5 GHz machines a few months down the road again.

The 980 intrigues me. IBM seems to have a fairly aggressive roadmap for this processor also. I am wondering if there are plans afoot to migrate the professional machines over to this processor as the consumer migration over to the 970 is completed.

This could be a very good year for Apple.
post #77 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by nebcon65
First off Klinux. I would restrain from using the word "ignorant" unless you know the people you are talking about on an individual basis. I take offense to being called ignorant just because I disagree with all that you're saying. You know nothing of my educational background or anything else about me. I am a Mac enthusiast but I'm not an apologist for Apple.

nebcon65: I am not calling you personally ignorant. Despite not having touched a Mac since Apple II, I am glad that I got the iBook 12 months ago. I too consider myself a Mac enthusisat and I am constantly defending Apple/Mac at work and at PC forums. With that said, like you, I am not an apologist for Apple either. My problem is with people who take what Apple (or any other company for that matter) says at face value without questions.

In the PC world, people constantly question the #s that manufacturer put out, ATI vs NVIDIA, Intel vs AMD, etc. In this case, neither Intel nor AMD has publicly benchmarked itself against G5 yet. If it did, trust me, people all over the net, on Slashdot, Ars, etc would all dig into the Intel or AMD's result just like they did with Apple's too. This is nothing personal; I just want empirical evidence beside what Apple has shown.

Unfortunately, none of us can really know until the G5 ships.
One iMac G5, one iPod, many PCs.
Reply
One iMac G5, one iPod, many PCs.
Reply
post #78 of 179
In this whole benchmark issue, I'm not terribly bothered that some people call Apple's benchmarks into question...that is reasonable. Apple gave full disclosure, and thusly opened themselves up to a debate on certain settings they chose.

What bothers me is:

1 - People flat out accuse Apple of LYING about the results...how can you LIE about the results when you publish specific instructions on how anyone can duplicate the tests once they have the machines in their hands? Do we believe Apple actually thought that people wouldn't READ the test design? They wouldn't have allowed something which they felt "proved they cheated" to get published. To believe so is moronic.

2 - People accuse Apple of manipulating the PC settings in order to hurt the P4 and Xeon tests, when Joswiak's explanation makes it clear that Apple tested multiple PC setting configurations, and published the settings that gave the PC the BEST results! Again...without any evidence at all, the PCers claimed the results were rigged against the PC when in fact the PC was shown in the best light possible in this GCC scenario.

3 - People say Apple's entire benchmark suite is suspect because their scores don't match other published SPEC scores...and yet Apple again clearly points out how they did their tests, why they did their tests that way, and admits that SPEC tests done with Intel optimized compilers might be better. (I'm not going to debate the GCC issue here...those who still don't understand/agree with why Apple used GCC will not be convinced by anything I can offer.) Like what he said or not, Joswiak was honest..now he's being called a liar too.

4 - If Apple had run the tests using the Intel compiler and optimizations the PC users are frothing at the mouth over, but had also used a PPC 970 optimized compiler on the Mac side, the PCers would have sworn up and down that Apple somehow cooked the books by using 970 optimization that would be "unfair"...yet these same people claim that the way Apple tried to run the tests in a FAIR and UNOPTIMIZED method across the board is ALSO unfair!

5 - In one of the biggest conspiracy theories ever, even if you leave out the SPEC scores entirely, the PCers accuse all of the other application specific tests (Photoshop, Logic vs. Cubase, Mathematic, etc.) of being faked. The PCers believe that the presidents of multiple technology companies that are happy to sell their software to Mac AND PC users would stand up on the stage with Steve and LIE about the G5 being the fastest platform for their software. They are all in collusion with Steve, and are purposely trying to lie to the world because...uh...well just because!

Even when/if Slashdot, ArsTechnica, Overclockers, and other "respected" PC-oriented sites get their hands on G5 machines and by some miracle manage to do their own testing which proves the G5 scores Apple produced are legitimate, there will be a flood of people who would begin saying somehow those PC-oriented sites made their own testing mistakes. Because to those people, anything which claims the Mac outperforms the PC will ALWAYS be a lie...even if it's not.

-- Ensoniq
post #79 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by Kecksy
Most of the PC sites are dismissing it and calling Joswiak an idiot. I think what Apple did was fair and they aren't trying to deceive anyone (they provided full disclosure"). I guess the guys at AMDZone and Overclockers feel threatened now that Apple has competitive hardware and see this as an opportunity to raise hell. I hope Apple continues to push the issue and publishes some more benchmarks. It might shut them up.

Is this really a surprise?

The PC hardware model of assumptions was just seriously called into question...if not broken

It is a spiraling case of dismay.

In one day literally 1000s of armchair posts at the myriad of PC hardware sites that have been about compilers, SPEC and so on.

Not one of these 'experts' has any experience with the machines, etc. They criticize blindly accepting Apples word ( and a plethora of other companies as well) yet insist that somehow, with no primary exposure of their own and one whole day to gather knowledge on the subject, that they know better and you are an idiot if you contradict them.

Nameless, faceless citizens of geekdom chanting against visible, accountable individuals who have first hand knowledge.

Is the G5 really faster? I have no idea.

But it is obvious that there are a lot of those out there that find this prospect a little more than just trivial.

Z
post #80 of 179
OK I cannot hold it in any longer.

The reason that the G5 beat the P4 in the SPEC benchmark was because of the compiler. It's as simple as that. Ensoniq, perhaps you can tell me why that isn't a valid point?

Just be thankful that there is an Apple produced computer that is no longer so clearly inferior to an even-priced Intel or AMD system.

But don't think that Intel or AMD will stop producing CPUs. They have roadmaps too, you know.
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?