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

Apple's Benchmarks misleading? - Page 3

post #81 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by jjhlk
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?

Of course. In fact, it's Apple's point.

It's true that Intel uses a compiler specifically tweaked to score well on SPEC, and it's true that Apple didn't use that compiler.

It's also true that the number of real-world x86 applications that use Intel's compiler is a lot smaller than the number that use GCC (not to mention MS), and those that do might just use different settings, so Apple's change of compiler is not irrelevant. Besides, it's supposed to be more "honest" to use the same application across platforms, so you end up with people using Premiere to establish a Dell's superiority in video editing, and with Apple using GCC to establish a Mac's superiority in SPEC.

The main complaint, in other words, is that Apple isn't playing by Intel's rules. I see no reason why they should have to. Their rules make as much sense as cross-platform benchmarking ever does, and they spelled out their methodology quite specifically for anyone curious. Now, I'm not going to say that Apple should be taken at their word; not after the last couple of years of "Pentium crushing G4s." But nothing I can see reveals anything dishonest about what Apple did this time around. If anything, they seem to be refreshingly open and honest now that they have a CPU they don't have to make any apologies for.

This is all academic anyway, since nobody can buy a G5 and see for themselves, and as the x86 fanatics are all too happy to point out, the x86 landscape will have changed slightly by the time the PowerMac G5 actually ships. Furthermore, no-one has convinced me that SPEC scores are of any particular interest to people interested in measuring real-world machine performance, especially across platforms, and especially when one platform relies fairly heavily on SIMD for its performance.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #82 of 179
"Greg Joswiak, vice president of hardware product marketing at Apple, in a phone interview today, defended Apple's performance claims for its upcoming Power Mac G5, after they came under fire in the wake of yesterday's announcement. Read on for the details.

Joswiak went over the points in turn, but first said that they set out from the beginning to do a fair and even comparison, which is why they used an independent lab and provided full disclosure of the methods used in the tests, which would be "a silly way to do things" if Apple were intending to be deceptive.

He said Veritest used gcc for both platforms, instead of Intel's compiler, simply because the benchmarks measure two things at the same time: compiler, and hardware. To test the hardware alone, you must normalize the compiler out of the equation -- using the same version and similar settings -- and, if anything, Joswiak said, gcc has been available on the Intel platform for a lot longer and is more optimized for Intel than for PowerPC.

He conceded readily that the Dell numbers would be higher with the Intel compiler, but that the Apple numbers could be higher with a different compiler too.

Joswiak added that in the Intel modifications for the tests, they chose the option that provided higher scores for the Intel machine, not lower. The scores were higher under Linux than under Windows, and in the rate test, the scores were higher with hyperthreading disabled than enabled. He also said they would be happy to do the tests on Windows and with hyperthreading enabled, if people wanted it, as it would only make the G5 look better.

In the G5 modifications, they were made because shipping systems will have those options available. For example, memory read bypass was turned on, for even though it is not on by default in the tested prototypes, it will be on by default for the shipping systems. Software-based prefetching was turned off and a high-performance malloc was used because those options will be available on the shipping systems (Joswiak did not know whether this malloc, which is faster but less memory efficient, will be the default in the shipping systems).

As to not using SSE2, Joswiak said they enabled the correct flags for it, as documented on the gcc web site, so that SSE2 was enabled (the Veritest report lists the options used for each test, which appears to include the appropriate flags). "
post #83 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
This is all academic anyway, since nobody can buy a G5 and see for themselves, and as the x86 fanatics are all too happy to point out, the x86 landscape will have changed slightly by the time the PowerMac G5 actually ships.

I cannot agree more with this statement (except maybe the "slightly" part but that is still irrelevant at this point)!
One iMac G5, one iPod, many PCs.
Reply
One iMac G5, one iPod, many PCs.
Reply
post #84 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by klinux
I cannot agree more with this statement (except maybe the "slightly" part but that is still irrelevant at this point)!

Why not slightly? AFAIK Intel won't have anything new out by August.
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 #85 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by whoami
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!


You could have a version of Linux with KDE/Gnome for the PC, which has many, if not all, of the interface features of OSX, and is also free.

Let's not forget that OSX is actually a free UNIX OS "under the hood" with an Apple window manager, not an original Apple creation.

Now that the Mac has a proper grown-up's OS, I would, as a Win2k PC user, consider buying a Mac. That is, if they weren't so expensive, especially in the UK.
post #86 of 179
After reading the mac-hater article from Haxial, I went about the internet to find some spec results, and below are my findings. There's a different list over at MacinTouch. You can take these numbers however you like, but I highly doubt that the numbers itself can be compared to each other on an objective basis (except for the two taken from Specs site).

PowerPC 970 1.8Ghz estimated (from IBM)
specint 937, specfp 1051

Intel P4 3.2Ghz (from Intel)
specint 1221, specfp 1252

AMD Athlon 3200+ (from Spec)
specint 1080, specfp 982

Dell PowerEdge 2650, 3.06 Xeon (from Spec)
specint 1056, specfp 1003

Apple's specs on the 2.0 Ghz PPC 970 (from Apple)
specint 800, specfp 840

Also Intel claims 406fps with Quake III v1.30 demo 4 (graphics card used unknown).
AMD claims 328fps with Quake III (version unknown) demo 2 (graphics card unknown-but listed)
Apple claims 337fps with Quake III v1.32 with ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB card (demo used unknown)
-T
Reply
-T
Reply
post #87 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by supernature
After reading the mac-hater...

Also Intel claims 406fps with Quake III v1.30 demo 4 (graphics card used unknown).
AMD claims 328fps with Quake III (version unknown) demo 2 (graphics card unknown-but listed)
Apple claims 337fps with Quake III v1.32 with ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB card (demo used unknown)


Mac-hater? I thought the Haxial article was balanced and informative, and the quoted flames were riotously funny. My colleagues and I (working in blissful harmony in a Mac/PC design office) had a good laugh this morning at the tone and grammar of some of those emails.

Forget frames-per-second for a moment - I am interested in how you manage to play Quake without a 3 button mouse.
post #88 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
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).

I think you mean "hyppocritical".
post #89 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by supernature
Apple claims 337fps with Quake III v1.32 with ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB card (demo used unknown)

Apple uses demo 4.
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #90 of 179
I can't believe how many people are complaining about the G5's. I mean who cares Apple is using doctored benchmarks, if this thing is able to make OSX purr then I'm game. Yes they are expensive and are still not as fast as Intel's offering but I don't know about you I use Mac because it best works for me In terms of design, operating system, support, software and the smaller more elite community. I'm the guy who buys Bang & Olufsen stereos not because their the most advanced, I buy them because of their awesome design and simple controls. Turn it on and it works, ALWAYS! Apple to me is the B & O of computers, beautiful, elegant and simple.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #91 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by computer_user
Mac-hater? I thought the Haxial article was balanced and informative, and the quoted flames were riotously funny.

I guess you haven't read his "All-Mac-users-that-don't-like-the-Haxial-interface-are-Mac-fanatics-and-Apple-copied-Windows-anyway" article.

My colleagues and I (working in blissful harmony in a Mac/PC design office) had a good laugh this morning at the tone and grammar of some of those emails.

Quote:
Originally posted by computer_user
I am interested in how you manage to play Quake without a 3 button mouse.

Perhaps they buy the mouse they want? My MX700 works fine on my Mac.
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 #92 of 179
The funny thing was how the Haxial dude claimed from the get go to be a Mac user. Now THAT was funny. Almost as funny was how he seemed to be gaining "momentum" the longer the article went. Halfway through the article I could sense he felt he was on a roll and forgot he was supposed to be a "disappointed and betrayed Mac user" . If that guy's a Mac user, I'll do a JD.

P.s That idiot was actually whining about Apple's pricing too...

"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."

LMAO, I hope I never run into this idiot at the market!
post #93 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by computer_user
I think you mean "hyppocritical".

And I think you mean "hypocritical"
Registered: Nov. 1999 - The first time
Reply
Registered: Nov. 1999 - The first time
Reply
post #94 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by JLL
I guess you haven't read his "All-Mac-users-that-don't-like-the-Haxial-interface-are-Mac-fanatics-and-Apple-copied-Windows-anyway" article.

As I understand it (perhaps I need an acronym here), both Microsoft and Apple ripped off the GUI concept from Zerox.
post #95 of 179
errr.. thats Xerox friend.

If you look into it, they ripped nada off. They only used the idea and made it into an workable OS, Xerox was basically going to "can it".
'If these words were people, I would embrace their genocide.' - Maddox
Reply
'If these words were people, I would embrace their genocide.' - Maddox
Reply
post #96 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by ZoranS
errr.. thats Xerox friend.

If you look into it, they ripped nada off. They only used the idea and made it into an workable OS, Xerox was basically going to "can it".

As Homer Simpson would say: doh!

Yes, as I understand it, the "suits" at Zerox (sorry, Xerox!), couldn't quite grasp what their tech people had come up with and told them to drop it. Bet they kicked themselves when they saw what Apple and Microsoft did with it...
post #97 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.

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.

I beg to differ. For a decent review of the tests go to The Register, they seem to have a very even handed article that explains why the tests were under the way they were. Apple was not intentional misleading any one and neither was the testing service.
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 #98 of 179
Boy, a crowd of insecure PC users sure has turned this forum to shit rather quickly.

The only thing we can wait for now is for IBM to release SPEC numbers based off of their own compiler. Once they've done that, they can be compared to Intel's own 'fixed' numbers.
"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 #99 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by dstranathan
Apple comments:

http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/03/0...id=126&tid=181

Thanks

that was an interesting post



-tom w
post #100 of 179
Actually Apple bought the GUI "Idea" from Xerox...
Xerox didn't think they had anything and Apple knew they did and jumped all over it.

It was Microsoft that saw Apple's implementation; which was much different that Xerox's prototype; and ripped Apple off.

Xerox planted the seed. Apple nurtured it into a fruit bearing tree. And it was Microsoft that snuck into the orchard and stole the fruit from the tree.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #101 of 179
Regarding the Haxial article being "balanced and informative"...

1 - How ironic to call the article "balanced"...when the author bases the majority of his arguments against Apple on the fact that Apple attempted to BALANCE the tests via the use of GCC rather than to allow the test to be skewed by specifically optimized compilers on EITHER side.

2 - Was it informative...well Apple's Joswiak (as well as information posted on Dell's own web site regarding their own SPEC tests with HyperTransport) seems to blow at least 80% of the Haxial article's "facts" out of the water. The guy wrote something less than 24 hours after the G5 keynote that was based on an inaccurate understanding and view of the test results. Therefore, all of the "conclusions" he made regarding the test were skewed. Yet HIS comments are taken as fact by the PC world, while Apple is the big "liar'.

I'd like a PC user to answer this for me...

Apple's Single 2.0 GHz G5 SPEC Scores:

SPECint 800
SPECfp 840

IBM's Single 1.8 GHz G5 SPEC Scores:

SPECint 937
SPECfp 1051

According to this, Apple's own testing shows a 2.0 GHz G5 is supposedly 20% slower than the 1.8 GHz G5? Impossible? So how can you account for the difference in speeds? Say it with me...

BECAUSE APPLE RAN THEIR BENCHMARKS BY TRYING TO USE THE MOST BALANCED PLATFORM SETTINGS ON BOTH SIDES, INCLUDING THE USE OF THE GCC COMPILER, IN ORDER TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD AND PROVIDE THE MOST UNBIASED SPEC SCORES THAT ARE POSSIBLE!

If Apple had used whatever optimized compiler settings that IBM ran when they tested the 1.8 GHz G5, the 2.0 GHz would have been about 10% faster than IBM's scores. That would have made them around the 1037/1151 mark, give or take. Why would Apple have published a report with scores of 800/840 instead of 1037/1151? Their SPECint scores would have been 20% higher and their SPECfp scores would have been 30% higher!

The only explanation for the discrepancy is that Apple's tests were intentionally NOT optimized...intentionally skewed down by doing exactly what they claimed: Using GCC on both sides to provide as FAIR a playing field, without tricks, as possible. And it's the fact that the PCers refuse to concede this point that is most annoying.

Apple has NOT claimed that the PC SPEC scores can't be tricked into being higher through Intel compiler optimization...that wasn't the point of THIS particular test. Do your own friggin' tests! But under THIS test, the results are valid. And Apple's claim has not yet been refuted scientifically...only attacked by the PC masses without grasping the facts. And no matter how much some may whine, there is no evidence Apple lied or intentionally misled anyone.

Apple's scores being lower than IBM's seem proof to me that Apple didn't go out of their way to falsify the test results...if they did, it hurt their own scores between 20-30%. You have to be a major conspiracy theorist to believe THAT! I do think that Apple should do new tests where they show Windows results, Intel's compiler results, etc. And then let IBM do the Apple tests with an IBM compiler. Wait til we see the crying then...

-- Ensoniq
post #102 of 179
I don't think there's any problems with the guy/gal that posted his/her opinion on the haxial site [the rest of the articles on that soapbox are GREAT also].

How is it not true he/she likes Apple/Macs?

I like Apple/Macs also, but sometimes greatly disagree with some decisions. But it doesn't make me think less of Apple as a company.

I believe the author stated that the G5 is an awesome machine [i'm sure most will @ least agree on that]. The only thing he/she is complaining about is about Apple's claiim as the "world's fastest desktop computer" ..... to be literal, that's a pretty big claim.

Either way, for myself, I'm not in a rush to upgrade until it's on 90nm..

Then I'll be FORCED to upgrade
post #103 of 179
Folks, the GCC benchmarks ARE relevant to:

Anyone who runs linux on intel. Linux apps are compiled with GCC. This point is not lost on the intelligent Linux folk and they know it.

Anyone who compiles cross platform apps for use on intel. It seems that quite a bit of physics/chemistry software is made in this way (using GCC).

So the benchmarks are relevant, just not to everyone. I think that one reason why some people are making such a stink is that they are used to the idea that the SPEC marks for their CPU are the SPEC marks that Intel gets. Of course, if your compiler isn't as good as Intel's compiler, then you aren't getting the performance (of course, SPEC is an artifical standard that doesn't represent the real world).
King Felix
Reply
King Felix
Reply
post #104 of 179
Right... I see how the argument goes around here... anyone who disagrees with Apple must all be trolls or "PC users" and therefore all their opinions are discounted.

Who says all Mac users must conform and think like one?
One iMac G5, one iPod, many PCs.
Reply
One iMac G5, one iPod, many PCs.
Reply
post #105 of 179
I can`t believe people are fighting over this.. ITS SPEC.. Who sits and runs spec all day long for a living? Real world apps are where its at boys.. Wait till some of those hardware sites get ahold of some of these machines and we will see a range of difference numbers.. I`m willing to bet the G5 still thrashes those intel boxen..
''i'm an extremist, i have to deal with my own extreme personality and i walk the fine line of wanting to die and wanting to be the ruler of all.''
Reply
''i'm an extremist, i have to deal with my own extreme personality and i walk the fine line of wanting to die and wanting to be the ruler of all.''
Reply
post #106 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by klinux
Who says all Mac users must conform and think like one?

They shouldn't, but why not address the IBM SPEC numbers as posted a few posts back?
"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 #107 of 179
Amorph, Programmer and others. I've posted my thoughts on the whole SPEC nonsense over at Ars. I encourage you all to read it and see if I missed anything. I think what I stated was simple, to the point and for the most part -- true. Perhaps we could bring bits of that discussion into this one.. In any case, it looks like the claim raised that Apple cheated with the SPEC scores is looking really, really weak at this point. Any additional thoughts or comments? my posts start on page 2 and continue onto page 3. There are only 3 pages at this point and the posts read quickly.

Here is the link: ArsTech discussion on the G5 SPEC results

--
Ed
post #108 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
They shouldn't, but why not address the IBM SPEC numbers as posted a few posts back?

Because 1) other people have already done so in numerous other places and I am tired of beating a dead horse, and 2) the real benchmark can only come in 3 months when the G5 ships and people want to do a shown down between the latest shipping models of G5 vs x86. Any other discussion between now and then is mostly futile.

Me? I can care less whther G5 burns Intel/AMD or the other way around. All I want is a faster OS X running machine and G5 promises that.
One iMac G5, one iPod, many PCs.
Reply
One iMac G5, one iPod, many PCs.
Reply
post #109 of 179
Quote:
but at 1299, the single 1.25Ghz G4 with L3 is not too shabby either.

£999 inc VAT a 1.25 G4 Tower?

Breakthrough price!

A sub-K tower! This is what Apple needs to do and they are doing it. They're keeping the G4s on for now. I wonder...will they keep this consumer tower price bracket as the 970 moves down the food chain?

For a couple of hundred more? A dual 1.25 gig G4. Not bad.

But the real jaw-dropper? A machine 6 times as powerful as a 1 gig G4. 2.7 times as fast on FP per 1 gig G4 clock. 4 x 1 gig G4 in dual 2 gig 970 x 2.7? So, the 970 is 10.8 times faster at floating point ops than an iMac 1 gig G4?

Apple are saying 6 times more powerful than a G4.

Anyway you look at that...THAT's impressive for Mac users.

But folks, Apple's G5 trashed the Xeon, DUAL for DUAL!

And the whiners over at AMDZone doesn't like it probably because his crappy AMD shares are at a low and set for lower when AMD misses...0.09 or whatever...y'know...after Intel reams them with Prescott...

If the president of Pixar says the G5 is the most powerful desktop. Gospel.

If Brad Peebler is raving about the G5. There you go.

Have you seen the Blast scores?

The Mathematic scores?

The Photoshop scores?

They're OUTSTANDING!

I think this 'understating' of the G5's scores by Apple maybe a bit of reverse G4 launch psychology.

The G4 was all 'altivec' in its speed claims.

The G5 has two fpu, great system controller, massive bandwidth and it outfoxes the Xeon in RAW performance.

I think when the pcweenies get the G5 machines in the office to review...they will perform even better from real world to spec scores. If anything, that compiler is going to get better for the G5. Panther will add to the equation, hopefully hot on the heels of the August (I sez September in numbers...) shipping...by the time reviewers get their machines...we prob' have Panther...and a more optimised OS/platform for the G5.

I think Apple kinda downplayed the G5 performance if those Spec scores are compaired to IBM's. They're showing that all things equal, PPC murders the much boasted Pentium 4 at over a gig less! AHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!

And they can't take it. MEGA-HURTS!

Sounds like sour grapes from Wintel cry babies that have had it their way too long.

There's a new King of the Hill. The Xeon wasn't moved over...it was f0*kin' blasted off! No pun intended.

Lemon Bon Bon

The 970 clearly outperforms a Pentium 4 twice per clock. That means even the mid-range (the one we thought was going to be the TOP model!) out performs the Pentium 4 at 3.2 gig. The 1.8 single is giving us 3.6 gig G4 performance at least overall. More for FPU. Not quite twice for Integer. That's a Pentium 4 at 3.6. They make them yet.

Let them ship Prescott this Fall at 4 gig. The dual 2 gig 970 will trounce it.

We're talking 7.2 gig at twice the clock in overall performance ala G4. 10 gig FPU? 6.4 gig G4 on Integer?

And...I've got the sneaky feeling that Apple may bump the 970 to a 2.5 by Fall to coincide with Panther...or 04 San Fran'.

2.5. That. Single. Equals yer 5 gig Prescott. hen.

In dual? 10 gig Prescott.

Not making them for while. heh.
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #110 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by klinux
Because 1) other people have already done so in numerous other places and I am tired of beating a dead horse

So you'll admit that Apple didn't 'fix' the numbers since they opted to use their own lower figures rather than the IBM numbers?
"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 #111 of 179
Quote:
So you'll admit that Apple didn't 'fix' the numbers since they opted to use their own lower figures rather than the IBM numbers?

Spec scores have been a brown nosed Intel harmonised benchmark that PCweeny mags insisted on running G4 machines on...and then wondered why the G4 didn't score well.

What goes around comes around. Now the PEECEE folks are squealing like stug pigs. Am I smiling smugly..? THE HELL I AM!

Nice one Bunge. (Buy this guy a drink...)

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #112 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
So you'll admit that Apple didn't 'fix' the numbers since they opted to use their own lower figures rather than the IBM numbers?

Sigh - are you stupid? The problem is not Apple's own G5/ The problem is that people have is Apple showing a lower score for PC than what the official # Spec is showing. This has been covered numerous times in other sites. Do you not read any other sites beside this?
One iMac G5, one iPod, many PCs.
Reply
One iMac G5, one iPod, many PCs.
Reply
post #113 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by klinux
Sigh - are you stupid? The problem is not Apple's own G5/ The problem is that people have is Apple showing a lower score for PC than what the official # Spec is showing. This has been covered numerous times in other sites. Do you not read any other sites beside this?

And that is a problem why?

As I've already said, the "problem" is that Apple isn't playing the game by Intel's rules. So what? The "official" SPEC score is a) irrelevant to reality, because most actual applications don't use that compiler at those settings, and b) impossible to compare cross platform, since Intel doesn't make a highly optimized PowerPC compiler. I supposed Apple could have used scores benched by IBM on a carefully configured VisualAge compiler, but why?

This is a non-issue. SPEC is a non-issue, as far as I'm concerned, but the howling over the way Apple decided to use it is largely just silly.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #114 of 179
Quote:
Apple showing a lower score for PC

...and a lower score for the G5 than what is 'official'. (see IBM spec score...)

Lemon Bon Bon

Mega-HURTS!
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #115 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by klinux
Sigh - are you stupid? The problem is not Apple's own G5/ The problem is that people have is Apple showing a lower score for PC than what the official # Spec is showing.

There's a reason the computer configurations are published with the SPEC results. If that's the best complaint people have then they're not overly knowledgeable.

Apple's testing methods have been fairly reasonable.
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #116 of 179
OK, these are my problems with the benchmark.

Quote:
He said Veritest used gcc for both platforms, instead of Intel's compiler, simply because the benchmarks measure two things at the same time: compiler, and hardware. To test the hardware alone, you must normalize the compiler out of the equation -- using the same version and similar settings

He's right, the benchmarks tested this: how well the G5 and the Dell 3Ghz could run GCC produced code. They didn't test hardware, they tested the compiler. For some people that will be a big thing because they use GCC, on linux especially. But had they tested actual CPUs, then the Dell would have won.

My problem with that is this: "The Power Mac G5 is the worlds fastest personal computer", taken off of the Apple website. It seems like they're making the wrong conclusions, especially in contrast to what Joswiak said. It's false advertising for one (not that it matters to any of you, who else will you buy your G5s from).

Quote:
He conceded readily that the Dell numbers would be higher with the Intel compiler, but that the Apple numbers could be higher with a different compiler too.

First he admits that the Dell would have "gone higher" (won), then says the Apply would have scored higher with their own compiler. He isn't even saying the G5 would have won with their own compiler and Intel's own compiler, it's just marketing double-speak. But what would you expect from vice president of hardware product marketing.

If their own compiler would have trounced the P4 /w ICC, then they would have used it. They would have at least supplemented the GCC benchmarks. That's why I believe they couldn't have scored higher, or at least couldn't have beaten the P4 /w ICC. (If they had benched with their own compiler, and then benched the P4 with GCC, it would clearly be BS to everybody)

Quote:
Let them ship Prescott this Fall at 4 gig. The dual 2 gig 970 will trounce it

Umm, if the G5 didn't *trounce* it now, what makes you think it will then (infact on the Apple website the G5 didn't win all the benchmarks). The Prescott isn't just faster, it has a better architecture too. Maybe it will still lose under GCC, but that remains to be seen. And there is still the Opteron...

Anyway: good luck with your G5 in the future. I look forward to benchmarking you.

PS: sorry there are so many people who take everything a company says as gospel.
post #117 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by jjhlk
Anyway: good luck with your G5 in the future. I look forward to benchmarking you.

I think we've found the problem...
"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 #118 of 179
Quote:
Originally posted by jjhlk
He's right, the benchmarks tested this: how well the G5 and the Dell 3Ghz could run GCC produced code. They didn't test hardware, they tested the compiler. For some people that will be a big thing because they use GCC, on linux especially. But had they tested actual CPUs, then the Dell would have won.

I'm trying to work out whether you believe code runs independantly of the hardware or are just illiterate here. Seriously, reread what you've said.

They actually tested only the hardware by using a common compiler (assuming it wasn't optimised for one platform more than the other, which isn't the case). The idea is if the compiler is the same for both pieces of hardware you are only evaluating hardware performance and taking the compiler out of the equation. I'm guessing you've never actually done any thesis or postgraduate research or you'd be familiar with these sorts of analytical techniques.

Quote:
Originally posted by jjhlk
My problem with that is this: "The Power Mac G5 is the worlds fastest personal computer", taken off of the Apple website. It seems like they're making the wrong conclusions, especially in contrast to what Joswiak said. It's false advertising for one (not that it matters to any of you, who else will you buy your G5s from).

Their conclusions are fine and their testing methodologies are actually fairly decent and well reasoned. I really hate to break that one to you.

Quote:
Originally posted by jjhlk
First he admits that the Dell would have "gone higher" (won), then says the Apply would have scored higher with their own compiler. He isn't even saying the G5 would have won with their own compiler and Intel's own compiler, it's just marketing double-speak. But what would you expect from vice president of hardware product marketing.

All you're really complaining about is the fact you need specially optimised compilers to make the tested x86 hardware faster than the PPC970 because hardware alone can't win it. Using a common compiler the PIV's came up second best and you can't stand that fact. Get over it. Performance leads swap over all the time and now there's just a new player in the game courtesy of IBM.

Quote:
Originally posted by jjhlk
And there is still the Opteron...

The Opteron is not a processor aimed at desktop computing. AMD makes this distinction. Come back and complain after the Athlon64 appears but do you really expect Apple is going to bother comparing themselves to anything but the best known competition?
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #119 of 179
"Do you really expect Apple is going to bother comparing themselves to anything but the best known competition?"

Do you think Apple is going to compare itself to anything that it cannot win? Since G4 so trounced P4 in the past as Steve has demonstrated why are we all gaga that G5 trounced P5. Unless... could Steve be exaggerating in the past? Could Steve be exaggerating now?

I also have a problem with Apple saying that it is the World's Faster Computer. It tries to say it is better than P4. It tries to say it it better than Xeon. It does not bench itself against AMD. By casting such a large net with a big hole (several - alread well hashed before), it is practically inviting dissenting opinion. Had Apple simply said how fast it is compared to G4 and demonstrated that, everyone would be fawning rather than second guessing.

OK, let's continue this discussion (I prefer to call it a speculation?) for three more months! Joy!
One iMac G5, one iPod, many PCs.
Reply
One iMac G5, one iPod, many PCs.
Reply
post #120 of 179
doesn't the P4 outscore the AMD chips anyway?
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?