Right. Care to show these benchmarks?Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
Nope, I seen benchmarks where a 3.0c outperforms the 2.0Ghz G5 (dual!!!)
So that is realworld.. And a SPEC is a great program to determine actual raw power of a CPU.
Right. Care to show these benchmarks?Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
Nope, I seen benchmarks where a 3.0c outperforms the 2.0Ghz G5 (dual!!!)
So that is realworld.. And a SPEC is a great program to determine actual raw power of a CPU.
I am tired of this dispute.. Go find them yourself :)Quote:
Originally posted by Stratus Fear
Right. Care to show these benchmarks?
There are plenty of threads on this forum with loads of links!
Now dont be so sore, the G5 is a better piece of trash then the G4.. But its still not the best out...
Colossus -
You know, you're one of the people on this forum that I had really grown to like, and I listened much of what you had to say about comps.
But seriously, why don't you give it up with the Mac-bashing? I mean OK, so now we know that you hate 'em and think they're evil spawn from the bowels of Bin Laden - but it has gotten lame already!
May the force be with you if you use Macs.
Colossus might be opinionated, but his opinions are generally based on facts. There is a simple fact at work here and its the answer to the question in the title of the thread.Quote:
Originally posted by aztec61
Colossus -
....But seriously, why don't you give it up with the Mac-bashing?
Colossus isn't the one needing to give anything up.
Translation: "Sorry, I lied, they don't exist." or "I'm too lazy to get them myself/Haven't actually seen them myself."Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
I am tired of this dispute.. Go find them yourself :)
There are plenty of threads on this forum with loads of links!
Now dont be so sore, the G5 is a better piece of trash then the G4.. But its still not the best out...
Nice that you support your claims :)
Well if you are so adamant about proving Apple is so superior.. You will do my leg work for me :D I admit I wasnt going to dig around for it.. But why should I? I have stated nothing more then common knowledge when dealing with Apple..Quote:
Originally posted by Stratus Fear
Translation: "Sorry, I lied, they don't exist." or "I'm too lazy to get them myself/Haven't actually seen them myself."
Nice that you support your claims :)
russ_watters: Thank You!
aztec61: As I have stated over and over in many Apple threads, I am not one that overly bashes the Apple desktops.. I have said before that I am a certified Apple Beta tester back in the days and was one of the point technicians for the NYC board of Education in dealing with Macintosh support... My opinions are not based on assumptions but from actual use, technical support and overall performance...
Granted I havent dealt with the newer G5, but I have with the G3 and G4 models.. Which blew chunks IMO...
Apple products are overpriced for what they are.. They should knock off the 25% markup over PC hardware. Why would I buy a 9800Pro for the G5 (which is the same hardware on the different PCB) and pay 25% more for the drivers?
I might be a little upset with Apple, I have done countless hours of Beta testing for the crappy OS 9.x I submitted a few pages worth in bugs and fixes.. All they ever gave me was a basket of Apples.. Not even the final release of the OS... So yeah I would be bitter...
We all know the ONLY reason apple has not filled a chapter 11 is due to the iPod... And what purchases they get from the Education department and from what Microsoft paid to them...
Put it this way, I would sooner go out and spend a ton of cash on a AMD setup then I would on an Apple desktop.
I'm not adamant about proving Apple's "superiority." I might be an Apple user, but I'm by no means an Apple fanatic. What I'm adamant about is you supporting your statements with something concrete, which you don't seem to do that often.
And apparently, the things you have to say about the G5 aren't common knowledge since you yourself have admitted to not having worked with one :)
I dont need to rehash my points... The knowledge is out there.. Go find it! :DQuote:
Originally posted by Stratus Fear
I'm not adamant about proving Apple's "superiority." I might be an Apple user, but I'm by no means an Apple fanatic. What I'm adamant about is you supporting your statements with something concrete, which you don't seem to do that often.
And apparently, the things you have to say about the G5 aren't common knowledge since you yourself have admitted to not having worked with one :)
Yes I have admitted not having experience the G5, but I dont need to when other sites have all proven it to be slower then the top dogs from Intel (and EVEN IN PHOTOSHOP!)...
Whats this BS about not supporting my statements often with concrete facts? What about the lack of facts you have? I havent seen one stitch of proof from you.. So buddy how does it feel being a kettle :D
Don't know if this matters to ya Colossus maybe this will calm him down
http://spl.haxial.com/apple-powermac-G5/
just one random link of many out there
Here's another that springs to mind:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/31405.html
I dunno Colossus. I think it was back in Sept. '99 when the G4 first came out, I had one of the first G4/450's. I thought it was a very good machine, and I think it actually did beat any Windows chip then on the market, or at least the 500 mHz model did.(?)Quote:
Granted I havent dealt with the newer G5, but I have with the G3 and G4 models.. Which blew chunks IMO...
At any rate, I got alot of work and play done on that rig. But if you're bitter at Apple for jerking you on your beta work, (and I can understand that) then just say so - instead of knocking them about other stuff that's really unrelated.
No it is not just that...
There are plenty of things I just prefer with the PC... And the benchmarks prove that the Apple Desktop is not the best processor out :)
I also dont like the OS anymore, since Microsoft released a much more stable OS then Windows 95.. YES Windows 98se was VERY STABLE to me.. It only crashed like once a month! If you built a computer with reliable parts, then the OS will shine... Now if you use crappy parts.. No OS in the world will be stable :)
But to get back ontopic here...
I like the ability to configure my PC and the choices in software. Even the little shop that ONLY creates this small utility, that does just one thing...
I also hated how the Apple OS included a bunch of worthless info within each file that you would create.. So you would need a program to strip that info from the file (mostly for webdesign)...
I loved that they used to be a consumer desktop that only comes with SCSI.. But now they have gotten so cheap, they dont even use SCSI anymore.. But kept their prices high? Sounds like they are ripping us off yet again...
I admit there were some programs that I loved that I had on my Apple desktop.. Such as this program that worked with my webcam to stream the video ONLY when the image changes or whatever... I used it to see who was stealing the change from my desk and touching my towers :) It would record a 3 day video stream in a few hours.. It was great!
I loved the older Apple AV model desktops... :)
I hated how odd the error messages were on the Apple OS... It would give you an error code and you had to use a 3rd party program to look it up????? And the answer would be just as bad as the question :)
I remember installing BEOS on my Apple desktop and were amazed how much better it performed over Apples own OS... But it did have bugs :(
I liked the addin card I had where I can hit a 3 button keystroke and boot my PCI PC card that was installed... (Hardware PC, not software based)
I dont know what idiot programmed the trash can to be the dismount function! That was the dumbest thing I have ever seen! Lets see, Delete files by dragging to trash can... Eject disk by dragging to trash can... Yeah he was a no brainer!
Oh how I hated those special enabler OS CDs... Granted it was removed with OSX.. But still :)
I hate how the newer desktops will not run an older OS... Especially for people that has a standard and need to run 9.x over OSX...
The G5 cases are very small and ugly IMO.. It is just way to limited in anything I would want to do to it... How about a 2nd optical for Disc 2 Disc (1:1) copies? What Apple cannot add a second drive bay?
How about a floppy drive? Come on Apple, they are not that expensive.. Or even a internal Zip drive instead of a floppy...
Its just stupid little things like that...
Personally I don't use Macs cause I find that anything I can do on a Mac, I can do on a PC and more. I dislike that 1 button mouse, I dislike the keyboards, and I dislike the OS.
That being said, I have toyed around with a G5 and it is a fast computer, but not my cup of tea. I still find the prices ridiculous for what you get. For that much money I could have built me a rendering farm and gotten 10x the performance :P
I'm not claiming anything in this. I'm telling you to prove what you say. Honestly, I've read a number of sites and haven't found much of what you say to be true -- so prove it.Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
I dont need to rehash my points... The knowledge is out there.. Go find it! :D
Yes I have admitted not having experience the G5, but I dont need to when other sites have all proven it to be slower then the top dogs from Intel (and EVEN IN PHOTOSHOP!)...
Whats this BS about not supporting my statements often with concrete facts? What about the lack of facts you have? I havent seen one stitch of proof from you.. So buddy how does it feel being a kettle :D
BTW, why would I need that link to accusation of cheating over SPEC? I already said I don't care about SPEC -- it's not a real world mark. Think, people, think. I find it sad that everyone is willing to make grand statements but then when asked where they got such info they refuse to say anything, get defensive, and rant on and on about how they're right and whatnot. It's silly.
Just look at the new PCMag benches out today, a dual G5 has trouble keeping up with both the FX and the EE. It costs about 2x more.
2x more? Buy the same stuff that's in a Dual 2.0 and then come back here. The FX-51 is around 800, the motherboards upwards of 200. 160GB SATA drives are fairly expensive, then you're adding a 9600 Pro on top of that, with 512MB of REGISTERED DDR400. That's quite pricey, probably upwards of 2000 after you include the few other things needed. Nonetheless, I didn't expect the G5 to beat the FX or EE anyway... But IIRC wasn't Colossus comparing it to a P4C? ;) I still haven't seen those benches he was ranting about.
I am gona get flamed here, but Apple may not make the best desktops in the world but they make some of the best laptops on the market, IMHO! Plus chicks dig the 15" PowerBooks:D
Good point - for the comparison to really be fair you'd need to test a dualie AMD or P4. But if the G5 is a little slower at twice the price, how much slower do you think it will be if you throw another thousand dollars worth of hardware into the PC?Quote:
Originally posted by Stratus Fear
2x more? Buy the same stuff that's in a Dual 2.0 and then come back here.
according to colossus though, you dont need to put a dual amd/p4 if a single p4 chip already beats the G5. thats like beating a dead horse.
your going to need more than the force if you use a mac;)Quote:
Originally posted by GetCarter
May the force be with you if you use Macs.
I've dealt with the G5 in the form of it's big brother the Power 4, and I can assure you it is a very good processor. It isn't just a little better then the G3 or G4, it's a whole lot better, technology wise it's along the lines of jumping from a Pentium classic to an Athlon. Unlike the G4 it is in the same class as the best desktop/small server CPU's from Intel or AMD.Quote:
Granted I havent dealt with the newer G5, but I have with the G3 and G4 models.. Which blew chunks IMO...
The Mac is also a lot better in price/performance then it was under the G4. A dual G5 Powermac is in the same range as a Dual Xeon workstation in terms of both price and performance. IMO the Powermac is still a little more expensive, but it depends on the exact configuration.Quote:
Apple products are overpriced for what they are.. They should knock off the 25% markup over PC hardware.
The Powermac is comparable to the top of the line X86 systems, and I would resist claims either way about it's superiority or inferiority. In all likelihood it is not good enough to take back significant market share but that is a separate issue.
Given the nature of his claim I don't think there is any reason to doubt it. Consider these two points. Most software isn't written to take full advantage of multiple processors, so on these apps single vs multiple processors isn't going to make a difference. Second, on any reasonably comparable processors you will get application to application differences performance differences that allow either processor to take the lead.Quote:
I'm not claiming anything in this. I'm telling you to prove what you say. Honestly, I've read a number of sites and haven't found much of what you say to be true -- so prove it.
Thus on any single threaded app that is inherently faster on the P4, a single P4 will be faster then a Dual G5. It is not quite a single threaded app, but if you want an example where a single P4 is faster then a dual G5 you need look no further then Quake III
Ya~ have you looked at errors in XP before. You get the "000x022kxs20" code and you have to look it up in the knowledgebase too.Quote:
I hated how odd the error messages were on the Apple OS... It would give you an error code and you had to use a 3rd party program to look it up????? And the answer would be just as bad as the question
Also, aren't the "G"-series chips (Macs) RISC-type procs, whereas x86's are CISC? I could be mistaken, but if not then that alone makes any direct comparison dubious at best, no? ie: apples vs. oranges.
RISC vs CISC is almost a non-issue as far as performance goes. The advantage RISC offers is that it simplifies the design process, and sometimes allows you do the same job with fewer transistors or less power. X86 designers long ago learned to compensate for the limitations their ISA places on them, so this leaves the only advantage as R&D costs, plus a little bit of die size. The economies of scale enjoyed by the X86 processors more then compensates for this.Quote:
Originally posted by aztec61
Also, aren't the "G"-series chips (Macs) RISC-type procs, whereas x86's are CISC? I could be mistaken, but if not then that alone makes any direct comparison dubious at best, no? ie: apples vs. oranges.
I.E. it costs more to design an X86 with comparable performance to a PPC chip, but since AMD and Intel sell so many more chips then IBM does the cost per chip is still lower.
BTW, the "real" name for the G5 is the IBM PPC 970