Not Good Benchmarks . . .
<a href="http://www.digitalproducer.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/11_11/cw_macvspciii.htm" target="_blank">http://www.digitalproducer.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/11_11/cw_macvspciii.htm</a>
I think the numbers say it all. And I'm not sure if any PowerPC 970 will make up these types of numbers. The Intel is already twice as fast as the Mac, and I think the 970 was suppose to be twice as fast also. So that means we'll be another year behind x86 which is quite depressing. It's getting hard to justify to my employers that Mac's are good things if this keeps on happening. They'll think I'm part of the same crowd that was suggesting SGI's a coupld of years ago and now we're stuck with tens of thousands of useless dollars because our PC's can run circles around them. I really, really hope this same fate doesn't befall the Mac. I guess only time will tell, but if we're in the same situation a year from now, then I guess Apple can consentrate on portables and the consumer market because the Pro markets will be gone (maybe editing will stick around because of final cut, but that'll probably be about it-anybody using Photoshop or After Effects will have to be an idiot to pay more for a machine that's three times slower (or whatever times slower it'll be by then) and say that the operating system is better, so they're more "productive").
I think the numbers say it all. And I'm not sure if any PowerPC 970 will make up these types of numbers. The Intel is already twice as fast as the Mac, and I think the 970 was suppose to be twice as fast also. So that means we'll be another year behind x86 which is quite depressing. It's getting hard to justify to my employers that Mac's are good things if this keeps on happening. They'll think I'm part of the same crowd that was suggesting SGI's a coupld of years ago and now we're stuck with tens of thousands of useless dollars because our PC's can run circles around them. I really, really hope this same fate doesn't befall the Mac. I guess only time will tell, but if we're in the same situation a year from now, then I guess Apple can consentrate on portables and the consumer market because the Pro markets will be gone (maybe editing will stick around because of final cut, but that'll probably be about it-anybody using Photoshop or After Effects will have to be an idiot to pay more for a machine that's three times slower (or whatever times slower it'll be by then) and say that the operating system is better, so they're more "productive").
Comments
He's comparing a 3.0ghz to a dual 1.25ghz. LOOK at the numbers, DUH, of course the mac will lose. There's no question macs are behind so this is an IBL post.
btw-he couldv'e used the $3000 powermac and the price difference wouldv'e been like $200. I already emailed his pc-loving ass.
Guess Apple ought to just give up and go home (maybe they could make toasters of another type or somethin')
OS X is something that a PC will never have (well marklar perhaps but you know what i mean) design and integration is something that MS and PC wil never do so it doesnt even matter
There are so many things wrong with this "article" that I won't even bother to start to list them. If you place any credibility in these observations, you're a PC loving freak, and you should get out of my warm fuzzy mac-loving world.
In any event, to summarize that thread:
-There isn't much of a price difference.
-White does the Mac vs. PC articles right after Intel releases an update, not right after Apple releases one.
-After Effects is a poor way to compare how fast a Mac is compared to a PC (uses about half of the power it could use.)
-Obviously biased.
Isn't cool how IBL has caught on? Yet another innovative term courtesy of yours truly, though this thread is more IBM (In Before Move) than IBL.
Jobs better pull something impressive out of his ass at MWSF. He hasn't run a fake off in 2 years, it doesn't look good.