What's the fuss with the G5? PC still has a big lead...

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Seriously, the slowest opteron is beating the fastest G5 and probably costs twice as less.



I simply don't understand what's the attraction to buy a G5, unless you are a snobish little rich boy who thinks expensive crap will make him cool. Not to mention, many OS X apps and OS X server itself is incompatible.



You would think a company such as apple would have straighten out compability with its own damn software.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 50
    jobjob Posts: 420member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SS Manic Devlin

    Seriously, the slowest opteron is beating the fastest G5 and probably costs twice as less.



    Hmmmm...can I walk into a store and buy an Opteron box? The Opteron chip is a server chip, not a desktop chip like the G5. The G5 is the speed which Mac users have been waiting years for. We are Mac users for a reason. We don't want to use an Opteron box.



    Quote:

    Not to mention, many OS X apps and OS X server itself is incompatible.



    Incompatible with....what exactly? 95% of the world? Please. This isn't the early 90s anymore.



    Quote:

    You would think a company such as apple would have straighten out compability with its own damn software.



    Uh...what? What software issues?
  • Reply 2 of 50
    The benchmarks were made with the opteron processor, the desktop version which is the AMD 64 line, which will have the same performance, will be available at stores.



    And guess what, you can even build your own system! An innovative idea that fails to be comprehended by most Mac users.





    Yes the current OS X server is incompatible with the G5 or did you miss that little news? Yes, this isn't the early 90s, so this is unexusable from apple which has a monopoly on its software and hardware.



    http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main_...fm?NewsID=6840
  • Reply 3 of 50
    jobjob Posts: 420member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SS Manic Devlin

    The benchmarks were made with the opteron processor, the desktop version which is the AMD 64 line will be available at stores.



    How long has the AMD 64 been pushed back? One year? Or was it one and a half? G5 production models are available now.



    Quote:

    And guess what, you can even build your own system? A innovative idea that fails to be comprehended by most Mac users.



    What does that have to do with the G5?



    Quote:

    Yes the current OS X server is incompatible with the G5 or did you miss that little news? Yes, this isn't the early 90s, so this is unexusable from apple which has a monopoly on its software and hardware.



    So you think that issues with software are unacceptable with a brand-new, 2 month old, system architecture? These are teething problems. Applications will have to be recompiled. This takes time.
  • Reply 4 of 50
    stevesteve Posts: 523member
    I think he means incompatibility with the G5 (i.e. apps that ran on previous Power Macs). I haven't heard anything about that, personally.



    And anyway, I didn't know that the dual G5's were shipping already and furthermore with their associated operating system (did you benchmark those Opterons on 32-bit Windows OSes?). But if we wanted to compare workstation-grade processors, I'm sure even IBM has something more tantalizing than the PPC970 by now designed to run in 4U, clustered monstrosities.



    The 64-bit Windows scene isn't looking too encouraging with respect to its hardware. You have several variations between chips depending on whether they are intended for server or personal use; some may be incompatible with previous OSes, while others may emulate 32-bit code perfectly; and so on.



    And this is still all speculation, as none of this stuff has even materialized for consumer use yet (there hasn't even been a non-server OS to support it in the first place). This makes G5 the only capable 64-bit, non-server, non-workstation processor by default. Period. Is it the fastest in league with its 32-bit brethren? Probably not if you measure performance by Unreal Tournament 2003 frame rates, no. But its true potential remains to be seen, and until Panther is released, posts like yours are only making the Windows community look paranoid.
  • Reply 5 of 50
    "How long has the AMD 64 been pushed back? One year? Or was it one and a half? G5 production models are available now."



    I like how you are clueless about PC news... It's coming out this 23rd of september.



    Opterons are already available.
  • Reply 6 of 50
    http://spl.haxial.com/apple-powermac-G5/



    Juicy deceiving information from apple about the G5.



    Sorry buddy, but you got yourself another G4. PC takes the lead as always.



    http://forum.cubase.net/forum/Forum5/HTML/009443.html



    Benchmarks.
  • Reply 7 of 50
    stevesteve Posts: 523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SS Manic Devlin

    Sorry buddy, but you got yourself another G4.



    It's not another G4 unless it stalls out somewhere around the 2.5GHz mark and leaves Mac users hanging for nearly two years without any speed-bumps, while Apple keeps piling on more chips in each box, begging us to conform to a twisted mentality that four brains are better than two, while simultaneously reverting back to an operating system that is not multi-processor aware. And I just don't see that happening.



    And I'll once again point out that Panther, the operating system that the G5 was DESIGNED to run on, is not even finished yet. And Lord knows Intel has had their fair share of whiz-bang marketing, from the whole GHz Glorification Saga to the vacuous "Hyper-Threading" nonsense they tried to push (a concession in their plight to keep P4's as single-processor systems while forcing users to go Xeon should they want the real deal -- and for tons more than any G5, I might add). So yeah. Can it.
  • Reply 9 of 50
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Steve

    It's not another G4 unless it stalls out somewhere around the 2.5GHz mark and leaves Mac users hanging for nearly two years without any speed-bumps, while Apple keeps piling on more chips in each box, begging us to conform to a twisted mentality that four brains are better than two, while simultaneously reverting back to an operating system that is not multi-processor aware. And I just don't see that happening.



    And I'll once again point out that Panther, the operating system that the G5 was DESIGNED to run on, is not even finished yet. And Lord knows Intel has had their fair share of whiz-bang marketing, from the whole GHz Glorification Saga to the vacuous "Hyper-Threading" nonsense they tried to push (a concession in their plight to keep P4's as single-processor systems while forcing users to go Xeon should they want the real deal -- and for tons more than any G5, I might add). So yeah. Can it.




    Too bad you forgot what the topic was about... I will make it simple.



    The G5 is no better than the G4.. Too little too late. PC is faster and twice as cheap.



    So apple has become a tyrant now? Forcefully made people change their OS, to run at a decent speed? What happened to backwards compability? Optimization? Support? Don't these virtues count for Apple?



    New processor! Time to upgrade your OS to have an half ass performance not even close to the oldest x86 processor.
  • Reply 10 of 50
    Why don't you download the PDF Veritest yourself and read it



    and read this



    http://www.applelust.com/oped/amc/ar...mc030718.shtml



    That stuff about the Benchmarks was out even before the G5 started shipping it just makes no sense !!!!
  • Reply 11 of 50
    You can't run 32bit and 64 bit apps concurrently on the Operton. You only do one or the other.
  • Reply 12 of 50
    Quote:

    Originally posted by LiquidR

    You can't run 32bit and 64 bit apps concurrently on the Operton. You only do one or the other.



    Where did you get this piece of propoganda? From some guy lying on a forum. Let me give you a more reputable review.



    http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...amd64xp&page=1
  • Reply 14 of 50
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SS Manic Devlin

    The benchmarks were made with the opteron processor, the desktop version which is the AMD 64 line, which will have the same performance, will be available at stores.



    And guess what, you can even build your own system! An innovative idea that fails to be comprehended by most Mac users.





    Yes the current OS X server is incompatible with the G5 or did you miss that little news? Yes, this isn't the early 90s, so this is unexusable from apple which has a monopoly on its software and hardware.



    http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main_...fm?NewsID=6840




    And what 64 bit software are you going to run on your little Opteron? How about an OS? Even if you made your own 64 bit software, you'll find out that the Opteron isn't a 64 bit chip after all ... not yet anyway:



    http://theregister.co.uk/content/3/32467.html



    OSX may not be a 64 bit OS yet, but at least applications will be able to access the 64 bit options on the chip - still light years ahead of Windows, which apparantly won't have any 64 bit ompatible OS until 2006 - at the earliest!



    The OSX server compatebility is mute, since brand new processors don't jump into the server market right off the bat. It took at least a good year for the P4 to get into servers. And if you weren't such a dildo, there are issues that have to be ironed out with the release of any new chip.



    Here's a little advice, son: don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
  • Reply 15 of 50
    Quote:

    Originally posted by LiquidR

    Bill ain't backin it up. Sorry Operton.





    "March 20, 2003"



    While i gave you a current review of the Windows XP 64bit built for AMD 64/opteron.



    http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...amd64xp&page=1



    Funny how biases some apple users here are...



    They would throw anything to save themselves from humiliation, while they just making themselves look worse.
  • Reply 16 of 50
    stevesteve Posts: 523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SS Manic Devlin

    Too bad you forgot what the topic was about... I will make it simple.



    The topic was not about supposed misinformation and unjustified hype and performance promises on the part of Apple? I was making the point that even if these blunders did turn out to be true (and no one knows if Apple got a little too pretentious about its own chip, as no OS has yet been released that takes realistic advantage of the damn processor), that it is nothing different than Intel's library of the same.



    Quote:

    The G5 is no better than the G4.. Too little too late. PC is faster and twice as cheap.



    Who says the PC is faster? Where is this information coming from, without an operating system to test against? And when Xeons cost comparable thousands of dollars, who says they're cheaper?



    Quote:

    So apple has become a tyrant now? Forcefully made people change their OS, to run at a decent speed? What happened to backwards compability? Optimization? Support? Don't these virtues count for Apple?



    Be prepared to do the same come Longhorn in 2006. In fact, similar issues occurred in the transition to Windows XP. Mac OS X was the first major operating system migration for Apple in fifteen years (overlooking the not-so-earth-shattering trip to PPC, given the backwards compatibility that surfaced in a timely fashion). That's like complaining that DOS apps don't work under WinXP.



    Furthermore, quicker-than-Windows point updates reflect Apple's business model of fast, immediate increments. They don't have to cater to millions of potential combinations of hardware, unlike Microsoft, nor do they have to wait for business upgrade cycles to pay-off, since enterprise is a small part of Apple's market (though it is growing), so Apple can afford to be more innovative, and more often. And with OS maturity comes optimization, yes. But you went way off topic there.



    Quote:

    New processor! Time to upgrade your OS to have an half ass performance not even close to the oldest x86 processor.



    What?
  • Reply 17 of 50
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    $3910 BoxxTech system

    2x1800 MHz Opteron

    1 GB PC2700 RAM installed (4 DIMM slots)

    120 GB ATA HDD

    DVD±RW drive

    integrated 6-channel audio

    NVidia Quadro4 380 XGL 64 MB

    integrated gigabit ethernet

    460W PSU

    five 32-bit/33 MHz PCI slots

    no S-ATA, no FireWire 400, no FireWire 800, no PCI-X, no digital audio I/O, etc.



    $3520 Apple system

    2x2000 MHz PPC 970

    1 GB PC3200 RAM installed (8 DIMM slots)

    160 GB S-ATA HDD

    DVD±RW drive

    integrated 6-channel audio with TosLink in/out

    ATI Radeon 9800 128 MB

    integrated gigabit ethernet

    600W PSU

    two 64-bit/100 MHz PCI-X slots, one 64-bit/133 MHz PCI-X slot

    FireWire 400

    FireWire 800



    Despite the Quadro4 branding, the nVidia card is crap. You think you can safely run two 1.8 GHz Opterons on a 460W PSU? Heh. No FW, no S-ATA, PC2700 and a smaller HDD? $390 premium? I'll be conservative and call it a draw.



    Troll on, dude.
  • Reply 18 of 50
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Steve

    The topic was not about supposed misinformation and unjustified hype and performance promises on the part of Apple? I was making the point that even if these blunders did turn out to be true (and no one knows if Apple got a little too pretentious about its own chip, as no OS has yet been released that takes realistic advantage of the damn processor), that it is nothing different than Intel's library of the same.







    Who says the PC is faster? Where is this information coming from, without an operating system to test against? And when Xeons cost comparable thousands of dollars, who says they're cheaper?







    Be prepared to do the same come Longhorn in 2006. In fact, similar issues occurred in the transition to Windows XP. Mac OS X was the first major operating system migration for Apple in fifteen years (overlooking the not-so-earth-shattering trip to PPC, given the backwards compatibility that surfaced in a timely fashion). That's like complaining that DOS apps don't work under WinXP.



    Furthermore, quicker-than-Windows point updates reflect Apple's business model of fast, immediate increments. They don't have to cater to millions of potential combinations of hardware, unlike Microsoft, nor do they have to wait for business upgrade cycles to pay-off, since enterprise is a small part of Apple's market (though it is growing), so Apple can afford to be more innovative, and more often. And with OS maturity comes optimization, yes. But you went way off topic there.







    What?




    Once again we are not comparing with Intel, even though you wish so much to be as so...



    I am speaking about the Opteron and the AMD 64 line.



    Isn't great that the X86 is worldwide accepted and has a healthy competition that engages in better technology and higher performance.



    While apple users, are forced to get what steve jobs decides to sell with the cost of his choosing.
  • Reply 19 of 50
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    SS, why the hell do you post here? You obviously hate Macs, and Apple in general. This is a forum for people who LIKE Macs. You don't have to be a Mac user to post here and technically you don't have to even like Macs, but why do you just come in and start a flame war? It's stupid. I don't even care to check your facts or anyone else's facts, because they don't matter. You probably have a grain of truth to what you're saying, but I bet you have put forth just as much bullshit as anyone else here, or more.



    You're just jealous because Apple beat AMD and Intel to the inexpensive 64-bit desktop chip. And you're right that for now, Intels are still faster at a number of things. But that will change as more applications become optimized for 64-bit processors.
  • Reply 20 of 50
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Luca Rescigno

    SS, why the hell do you post here? You obviously hate Macs, and Apple in general. This is a forum for people who LIKE Macs. You don't have to be a Mac user to post here and technically you don't have to even like Macs, but why do you just come in and start a flame war? It's stupid. I don't even care to check your facts or anyone else's facts, because they don't matter. You probably have a grain of truth to what you're saying, but I bet you have put forth just as much bullshit as anyone else here, or more.



    You're just jealous because Apple beat AMD and Intel to the inexpensive 64-bit desktop chip. And you're right that for now, Intels are still faster at a number of things. But that will change as more applications become optimized for 64-bit processors.




    I am not here to hate or like, simply to make a point... And i read no disclaimer saying that you have to like Macs to join this forum.
Sign In or Register to comment.