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
SMP doesn't equal 2x speed, and some programs don't even support it. There were probably benchmarks where the second processor was idle, so I wouldn't think 2x AMD/P4 would help that much more.Quote:
Originally posted by russ_watters
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?
Can we finally stop arguing?
The article clearly shows the Dual 2Ghz Apple gets worked like a horse when compared to PCs.
Enough??