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