Athlon XP 1.67ghz vs Apple G5 1.60ghz Benchmarks...
Omega65
Philadelphia, Pa
saw this link on the <a href="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11182" target=_blank>The Inq: AMD, Apple G5 & G4 contrasted</a>
<a href="http://www.theandyzone.com/Computer/shootout.html" target=_blank><b>G4, G5, and AMD Shoot-Out!</b></a>
<i>After looking at these, I was a bit surprised at the relative strength of the AMD 2000+ versus the 1.6 IBM 970. In some arenas, the gap was wider than I had expected it to be. In some others, the 970 was competitive. (And it was nice for me personally to have my dual 1.25 be at least as fast on the CPU rendering test above.) If anyone has benchmarks using Cinebench 2003 for a 1.8 Ghz G5, if you'll send them to me I'll attach them, too, as well as any other Pentium 4 benchmarks using the same utility.
Has Apple closed the speed gap? That remains to be seen. Certainly, it's evident from these benchmarks that the 1.6 G5 is competitive with the 1.67 Ghz AMD (2000+ rated), though in most cases the AMD showed itself to be slightly stronger. Of course, these are the results of only one benchmark. Personally, I like this benchmark <b>(Cinebench)</b> since I work graphics and video.</i>
Apple Sucks!
;D;D;D
<a href="http://www.theandyzone.com/Computer/shootout.html" target=_blank><b>G4, G5, and AMD Shoot-Out!</b></a>
<i>After looking at these, I was a bit surprised at the relative strength of the AMD 2000+ versus the 1.6 IBM 970. In some arenas, the gap was wider than I had expected it to be. In some others, the 970 was competitive. (And it was nice for me personally to have my dual 1.25 be at least as fast on the CPU rendering test above.) If anyone has benchmarks using Cinebench 2003 for a 1.8 Ghz G5, if you'll send them to me I'll attach them, too, as well as any other Pentium 4 benchmarks using the same utility.
Has Apple closed the speed gap? That remains to be seen. Certainly, it's evident from these benchmarks that the 1.6 G5 is competitive with the 1.67 Ghz AMD (2000+ rated), though in most cases the AMD showed itself to be slightly stronger. Of course, these are the results of only one benchmark. Personally, I like this benchmark <b>(Cinebench)</b> since I work graphics and video.</i>
Apple Sucks!
;D;D;D 0
Comments
So what do we know?
Hammer > Athlon XP > G5 > Pentium 4
But we already knew that. It's a shame Apple did nothing but insult themselves by comparing their chips to a p4...That's like using a Mitsubishi Eclipse against a Honda Accord to show the Eclipse is better. What's it prove?
Oh yes, it proves that Apple is a bad company with a moronic leader followed blindly with lemming-like board members that exist to serve aesthetically pleasing products to mentally-deficient artists and indie musicians. Adding insult to injury, the architecture remains 12 months behind AMD, and 3 months ahead of Intel, the latter not saying much, with no intent to bring it into the modern era.
Apple continues to be a sinking ship...I'm just waiting for it to snap in half and go under to finally kill off the miserably blind lackies that the company has left.
"Apple is better for media!"
Shall be the words of death that will forever mark the weak company and their similarly weak users.
It would get killed by a FSB333 or 400 Barton 512K. Much less an Opteron/Athlon64 1MB
Less performance at Twice the Price!
I say again Apple sucks!
Idiots.
<a href="http://www.barefeats.com/g5sum02.html" target=_blank>G5 Power Mac vs Others</a>
I've always thought Steve Jobs was in the wrong occupation. He'd have been a great politician. I mean how many times has he taken a turd, cleaned and polished it, and made it out to be a diamond.
But hey...there's always the iPod and iTunes to fall back on.
"Our experienced engineers have taken incredible care when producing the new audio format native to Apple iTunes. Through systematic trial and error with compression algorithms, we believe that our AAC audio format, now with rFilter will provide CB-radio quality sound at exceptionally small sizes. We're sure our lemming-like user base will praise this product as if it were actually a quality entity. We at Apple would like to thank Apple users and users of Apple iTunes for paying a fee and defending our **** of miserable quality! Without fine supporters like those of the Apple platform, we'd already be filing for chapter 11. Thanks for being crappy, to keep crappy products alive."
you really ought to think about a career in marketing for an ad agency. Send a couple add ideas like that to Apple and I'm sure they'd snap you up in a second!
Marketing? No, Thrax is too subtle.
I'm just waiting for one of their moronic advertisements to say it like it is: "Apple, for the touchy-feely among us".
NS
To NightShade:
All tests were relevant, as the CPU has significant power over the capabilities of the GPU. As you can see, all tests used identical video cards, however the speeds of the test vary wildly. This, logically so, points to the capability (Or incapability) of the processor in regards to the final score/time.
As video cards were identical, and the Macs continuously failed to achieve the highest score, we can only come to the conclusion that mac architecture sucks.
To TheBaron:
Read the test set up. Don't just look at the pictures.
Obviously you don't read around very much.
He was just correcting people. Nothing wrong with that
NS
Apple's marketing is outright lying. I don't know how they're getting away with it. The G5 isn't the "world's fastest, most powerful personal computer" by any stretch of the imagination, and the only benchmarks that say it is are Apple's own. Apple's benchmarks aren't just biased, they're flat out fradulent. They optimized the benchmarks for the Apple, and disabled the optimizations for the PC, and they compared it to the Pentium 4, but left out the Athlon. Oh, and they seem to think that a Dual CPU G5 is equivalent to a single CPU PC. I want to know what the guys @ Apple's ad agency are smoking...
Dual G5 = Athlon XP 2000+
regardless, that still proves my point in that the GPU is not a factor as it is the same GFX card across all 3 test setups