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..
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).
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?
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..
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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 world?s 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.
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 world?s 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?
"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!
PS: sorry there are so many people who take everything a company says as gospel.
S'funny. 98% of PC weeners have been buying the Intel 'mhz' is god crap fer years.
And they readily accept Spec benches which are optimised on Intel's terms.
Sorry, I thought I smelt a line of crap fer a second there...
Machine vs Machine. The G5 whooped the Xeon's ass. And that's the best Intel has got.
Renderman President didn't say Xeon was the fastest. Or the bloated Pentium 4...nope. The G5! Read and weep. I'll take Pixar's President on Renderman over any armchair PC hack on these boards.
And yer 'Amd' net loophole...well...if the Pentium 4 trashes 'XP' athlons...and the Pentium 4, more significantly, the Xeons...got trashed...then G5 says, 'So waht to AMD...' AMD haven't been able to do proper mhz fer a few years now. They've been playing with numbers. Intel fudge the numbers when they launched the 1.4 gig Pentium 4 which was slower than a 1 gig Pentium 3! Yeesh, the hypocritical spew being ejaculated by threatened PC whiners is discordant to say the least.
And the much lauded AMD 64...by the time they get that out the gate and into the hands of PEECEE whiners...then IBM and Apple will be waiting for them with 2.5 .13 970s. Dual. Poor AMD should be stuck on their 1.8 gig mhz Opteron for a while. Heard they had problems getting their mhz up. 'kin take some Viagra fer that...
Lemon Bon Bon
I AM GOING TO BUY A G5 AS SOON AS THEY START SHIPPING! TOP END. DOG'S B*LL*CKS!
Comments
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
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).
Who says all Mac users must conform and think like one?
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?
Here is the link: ArsTech discussion on the G5 SPEC results
--
Ed
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.
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.
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?
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
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?
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.
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!
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.
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 world?s 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).
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)
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.
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...
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.
Originally posted by jjhlk
My problem with that is this: "The Power Mac G5 is the world?s 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.
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.
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?
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!
PS: sorry there are so many people who take everything a company says as gospel.
S'funny. 98% of PC weeners have been buying the Intel 'mhz' is god crap fer years.
And they readily accept Spec benches which are optimised on Intel's terms.
Sorry, I thought I smelt a line of crap fer a second there...
Machine vs Machine. The G5 whooped the Xeon's ass. And that's the best Intel has got.
Renderman President didn't say Xeon was the fastest. Or the bloated Pentium 4...nope. The G5! Read and weep. I'll take Pixar's President on Renderman over any armchair PC hack on these boards.
And yer 'Amd' net loophole...well...if the Pentium 4 trashes 'XP' athlons...and the Pentium 4, more significantly, the Xeons...got trashed...then G5 says, 'So waht to AMD...' AMD haven't been able to do proper mhz fer a few years now. They've been playing with numbers. Intel fudge the numbers when they launched the 1.4 gig Pentium 4 which was slower than a 1 gig Pentium 3! Yeesh, the hypocritical spew being ejaculated by threatened PC whiners is discordant to say the least.
And the much lauded AMD 64...by the time they get that out the gate and into the hands of PEECEE whiners...then IBM and Apple will be waiting for them with 2.5 .13 970s. Dual. Poor AMD should be stuck on their 1.8 gig mhz Opteron for a while. Heard they had problems getting their mhz up. 'kin take some Viagra fer that...
Lemon Bon Bon
I AM GOING TO BUY A G5 AS SOON AS THEY START SHIPPING! TOP END. DOG'S B*LL*CKS!