A different POV on Apple's "misleading" benchmarks
There was one big thing that Apple's benchmarks illustrated to me, and I think it is also important to point out. For all the schlubs out there who still bang the OSX on X86 drum, I think the benchmarks showed us where we would be performance wise if Apple had adopted X86 vs. the PPC9XX.
Using the GCC compiler, and running linux on the Intel boxes, is about the closest they could have (realistically) come to having OSX running on said boxes. I think the results of said benchmarks showed pretty well that the 970 is a much better choice for Apple that X86.
Plus, what was the remark that the IBM VP made about having a pretty hot roadmap...
(Sorry mods, now that I think about it I probably should have posted this in the other "misleading" thread, but with all the poo-pooing of the benchmarks, I thought this different spin might need a new thread.)
Using the GCC compiler, and running linux on the Intel boxes, is about the closest they could have (realistically) come to having OSX running on said boxes. I think the results of said benchmarks showed pretty well that the 970 is a much better choice for Apple that X86.
Plus, what was the remark that the IBM VP made about having a pretty hot roadmap...
(Sorry mods, now that I think about it I probably should have posted this in the other "misleading" thread, but with all the poo-pooing of the benchmarks, I thought this different spin might need a new thread.)