Apple gets beat again

hmurchisonhmurchison
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/...49,pg,8,00.asp





Why is a single 2Ghz Operton faster than TWO 2Ghz G5s?



Much more optimization need to be done.



However it points to another thing. Crappy software.



It's not suprise that Premiere and Word suck.



Quake numbers were fine. Photoshop were decent.



Apple did the right thing in running A"slowbe" out of the Digital Video market. Word sucks.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12
    zozo Posts: 3,117member
    read the infinite wisdom of some Slashdot people on /. and the make a few valid points... like the fact that certain apps of OS are not 64 bit, etc etc...
  • Reply 2 of 12
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    Uhm, they are basically testing unoptimized apps on an unoptimized system.
  • Reply 3 of 12
    stupider...likeafoxstupider...likeafox Posts: 1,618member
    These people are taking the piss, pure and simple.
  • Reply 4 of 12
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    As I've said oh so many times, run a big render in Electric Image and you'll be singing a different tune. And when the difference is 8 hours versus a day, it really matters.



    Get an app that actually uses Altivec and multi-processors, and all the sudden G4's are beating P4's and probably opterons too. Not to mention what G5's can do.
  • Reply 5 of 12
    willoughbywilloughby Posts: 1,457member
    Premiere, Word and Quake



    That is just insane. The video cards aren't even the same! Look at the photoshop tests, at least those make sense. Can you say biased boys and girls, I know you can.
  • Reply 6 of 12
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    Premiere 6 is a Classic app (not native for X)....even 6.5 sucks anyway...



    Word....who gives a fu(k on this!



    Quake.....Mac is always second class in games...





    Pretty much these guys are using the apps that suck on Mac to do the comparison.







    Oh by the way. Apple is doomed. I am getting a DELL
  • Reply 7 of 12
    ijerryijerry Posts: 615member
    message deleted, talked out of my arse....sorry, carry on...
  • Reply 8 of 12
    ipodandimacipodandimac Posts: 3,273member
    im sure having more ram would mke a huge difference
  • Reply 9 of 12
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Because it's PC World? I don't take stock in any numbers from MacAddict, Macworld, PC World, PC Magazine, etc. Why should anybody? Use the numbers compiled on Ars Technica or other sites where actual users submit benchmarks.
  • Reply 10 of 12
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Leonis

    Premiere 6 is a Classic app (not native for X)....even 6.5 sucks anyway...



    Performing benchmarks with a machine running something in classic is obscene. I ran Classic Quake III, and the FPS were less than 75% of what they were in the OS X native version, and the sound was messed up. I'm assuming the same applies for any other processor intensive app.
  • Reply 11 of 12
    johnhenryjohnhenry Posts: 152member
    In the "how we test" it says the mac tests are performed by the macworld test lab. Why wouldn't the Macworld lab ppl bring up the points you guys have mentioned? Weird.
  • Reply 12 of 12
    chagichagi Posts: 284member
    Personally I don't really care about the Athlon 64 FX benchmarks. Why? Because it's allegedly going to be pretty hard to get your hands on one in the next few months.



    The dual G5 did pretty well, though the single CPU system was less stellar. I'm getting very curious to see some benchmarks once Panther is released in a few more days.



    And since when is Microsoft Word a good benchmark to use???? I know that I do find and replace commands in 1500 page documents all the time. (Sarcasm off)
Sign In or Register to comment.