i was talking to silentl lechos (Mount My Floppy) on IM and he was telling me about his friend...
silentI Iechos (10:30:00 PM): He was all wow thats expensive.. I told him to find a PC for cheaper with that kind of performance.. Oh wait there isnt HAHA!
its funny cuz its tru
Comments
I think a lot is riding on when we start seeing how the G5 fares playing games.
and, once developers start realizing that it is superior, and start making more games for it, then I think it will become a more popular computer for many an average user.
Right now the market for these things seems kind of small.
Originally posted by Wrong Robust
Right now the market for these things seems kind of small.
yea the market where people actually do work on there computers
edit: talking to one of my pc friends today, and he was getting all defensive, it was classic.
anyone care to look into this?(I'm at newegg.com now...looking at components and stuff, damn cheap for a lot of stuff.)
Originally posted by Wrong Robust
Of course, I'd imagine that one could build their own system of comparable specs, and end up spending less than that of a 1.6 ghz. g5.
you could try... but it would end up being pretty pointless once you start getting into things like gigabit ethernet, firewire 800, etc. etc. etc., a motherboard that supports such an insane amount of RAM, etc.
you might get close to the 1.6 model, but above that it's gonna be even more tough since no PC in this world will support 8GB RAM.
Originally posted by pesi
you might get close to the 1.6 model, but above that it's gonna be even more tough since no PC in this world will support 8GB RAM.
And no 1.6 ghz g5 will either
certainly there are all those added goodies that make the mac platform more compelling, that you rarely(or don't) find on the PC world, but in terms of raw power, and bandwidth, I believe you could build your own system of comparable power and internal bandwidth, for roughly the same if not less.
the point is apple did a damn good job with these things, too bad, it is only now that people begin to realise..."wait a second, I'm just an average shmuck...I don't need this" d'oh!
Originally posted by Wrong Robust
And no 1.6 ghz g5 will either
heh. well, i meant "when you get above the 1.6" model, menaing the 1.8 and 2x2 models.
true, if you wanna build yourself a bare power machine you can do it for cheaper in the PC world... but that's what you're left with... a bare, unexciting machine.
Originally posted by pesi
true, if you wanna build yourself a bare power machine you can do it for cheaper in the PC world... but that's what you're left with... a bare, unexciting machine.
Without the joy of OS X...or the sheer brilliance of iLife.
The G5 is miles ahead of the G4, but remember, we were miles behind Wintel. The G5 lets us catch up in somethings, but we're not Kings of the HIll yet.
The G5 system is cool, and Apple tried to jump ahead in some areas, like HT, but is just catching up in others, like USB2.0. If you challenge a guy who rolls his own system, he'll kick both Dell and Apple in the butt in terms of price/performance.
well how about this...i use photoshop...i'll stick with mac as long as its fast which it will be
From a post by Matt Deatherage (http://www.macjournals.com):
Keep in mind that this "analysis" is wrong in its most major respect: you can't compare SPEC results that use different compilers as if they didn't matter. SPEC benchmarks are not binary programs; they're very standard C and Fortran source code that's compiled for the platform in question under strict rules. Intel's SPECmarks always use its own super-optimizing compiler, long "informally accused" of optimizing for typical SPECmark code. It also makes code that can be up to twice the size of non-optimized code.
The assertion that gcc is somehow not optimized for the Pentium is also silly, as gcc is _the_ Linux compiler. Just about every version of Linux for Intel-compatible chips was built with gcc, and it has been optimized in normal use to within a cycle of its life.
This is why Apple paid a third-party lab to conduct the tests, why both machines used as similar compilers as possible, and why those results are valid when using completely different (and super-optimizing) compilers cannot compare to something like gcc. If anything, gcc gave the Intel system an advantage, as a lot more people have spent a lot more time optimizing it than have done so for the PowerPC code generator.
There was more on this back in MDJ 2002.03.13 and MWJ 2002.03.17 if you need it. The upshot is that benchmarks are complicated: you can't get a better number out of _any_ compiler on _any_ motherboard and say it means the computer is faster. There's more to it than that.
The claim that integer matters "much more" than floating point performance is also fairly silly, but we'll get into that in print.
Now....what I really want to know is this:
How do the G5 Macs compare to G4 Macs ??
...that statistic might actually mean something to a Mac user like myself.