Not Good Benchmarks . . .

twinturbotwinturbo
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
<a href="http://www.digitalproducer.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/11_11/cw_macvspciii.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.digitalproducer.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/11_11/cw_macvspciii.htm</a>;



I think the numbers say it all. And I'm not sure if any PowerPC 970 will make up these types of numbers. The Intel is already twice as fast as the Mac, and I think the 970 was suppose to be twice as fast also. So that means we'll be another year behind x86 which is quite depressing. It's getting hard to justify to my employers that Mac's are good things if this keeps on happening. They'll think I'm part of the same crowd that was suggesting SGI's a coupld of years ago and now we're stuck with tens of thousands of useless dollars because our PC's can run circles around them. I really, really hope this same fate doesn't befall the Mac. I guess only time will tell, but if we're in the same situation a year from now, then I guess Apple can consentrate on portables and the consumer market because the Pro markets will be gone (maybe editing will stick around because of final cut, but that'll probably be about it-anybody using Photoshop or After Effects will have to be an idiot to pay more for a machine that's three times slower (or whatever times slower it'll be by then) and say that the operating system is better, so they're more "productive").

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 8
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    Not this troll loving article again.



    He's comparing a 3.0ghz to a dual 1.25ghz. LOOK at the numbers, DUH, of course the mac will lose. There's no question macs are behind so this is an IBL post.



    btw-he couldv'e used the $3000 powermac and the price difference wouldv'e been like $200. I already emailed his pc-loving ass.
  • Reply 2 of 8
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    Oh no, mac 1,25 Ghz is slower than 3 Ghz Intel machine, gee what a surprise, duh.



    Guess Apple ought to just give up and go home (maybe they could make toasters of another type or somethin')
  • Reply 3 of 8
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    what does it matter...does ur mac do everything you ask it to, and are you annoyed by its speed?



    OS X is something that a PC will never have (well marklar perhaps but you know what i mean) design and integration is something that MS and PC wil never do so it doesnt even matter
  • Reply 4 of 8
    wormboywormboy Posts: 220member
    My question is why was this comparison not done by these PC sychophants when he 2.53 was the star of the Intel world. I'll tell you why. It would have looked bad for them. Really, go look at the numbers and think about this. The 1.25 GHz Apple machine is about the same as the 2.52 Intel machine. OK, so Intel just jumped to the next level with hyper-threading. You're sadly mistaken if you really believe that Apple won't also produce a performance jump with their next revision.



    There are so many things wrong with this "article" that I won't even bother to start to list them. If you place any credibility in these observations, you're a PC loving freak, and you should get out of my warm fuzzy mac-loving world.
  • Reply 5 of 8
    carson o'geniccarson o'genic Posts: 1,279member
    One problem with these comparisons is the software being used. I've seen on another site (forgot which) some comparisons to show that Adobe products really don't take advantage of dual processors very well. I remember they showed that studio artist (a great app), which made no advertised claims to be dual processor savvy, had a large speed gain on a dual vs. single processor Mac. Sadly, Photoshop and After Effects had a minimal speed boost. I don?t understand why Photoshop hasn?t been better optimized, but perhaps the behavior of After Effects is Adobes little way of getting even for FCP. So, the real question is if you have a person with FCP on a Mac and someone with their favorite PC video package on a PC, who gets the job done faster and better. A hard and subjective question to answer. For me, I?ll stick with the Mac.
  • Reply 6 of 8
    klinuxklinux Posts: 453member
    Done to death here. <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=001737"; target="_blank">http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=001737</a>;
  • Reply 7 of 8
    spartspart Posts: 2,060member
    Yes, it's already been discussed to death. This doesn't belong in FH anyway, and should be locked regardless. Bodhi, where art thou?



    In any event, to summarize that thread:



    -There isn't much of a price difference.

    -White does the Mac vs. PC articles right after Intel releases an update, not right after Apple releases one.

    -After Effects is a poor way to compare how fast a Mac is compared to a PC (uses about half of the power it could use.)

    -Obviously biased.
  • Reply 8 of 8
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Yeah, a DUAL 1.25 is almost as fast as a SINGLE 2.53. But the number of CPU's in use shouldn't matter to anyone, only the dollars to seconds ratio matters. Not specious benchmarks or theoretical numbers, just time to (completed) task and cost per machine. And here the mac just gets spanked by much cheaper Intel competition.



    Isn't cool how IBL has caught on? Yet another innovative term courtesy of yours truly, though this thread is more IBM (In Before Move) than IBL.



    Jobs better pull something impressive out of his ass at MWSF. He hasn't run a fake off in 2 years, it doesn't look good.
Sign In or Register to comment.