I agree. I've been waiting to get a mac for a while and this one really looks like it could be the one. A nice dual 64bit machine just screams my name.
Before we examine the SPEC results that Apple/Veritest claims, it must be noted that Apple/Veritest have used a few "cheats" to make the G5 look better. So whenever you see a Apple/Veritest result in the following tables, be aware that it has been affected by the following "cheats".
Apple/Veritest used a special fast malloc library on the G5 benchmark, but did not use it on the Dell/Intel benchmark, thus giving the G5 an unfair advantage. Here is the relevant quote from the Veritest report:
"Installed a high performance, single threaded malloc library. This library implementation is geared for speed rather than memory efficiency and is single-threaded which makes it unsuitable for many uses. Special provisions are made for very small allocations (less than 4 bytes)."
(Page 5, also see Appendix E, Page 26, Veritest PDF)
Apple/Veritest crippled floating-point on the Intel CPU's by not using SSE2. Here is the relevant quote from the Veritest report:
"Generate floating point arithmetics for sse. [...]. The earlier version of SSE instruction set supports only single precision arithmetics, thus the double and extended precision arithmetics is still done using 387. Later version [SSE2], present only in Pentium4 and the future AMD x86-64 chips supports double precision arithmetics too."
(Appendix F, Page 27, Veritest PDF)
For both the Dell Dimension 8300 and the Dell Precision 650, Apple/Veritest performed the multi-processor "Rate" benchmarks with hyperthreading DISABLED. They had hyperthreading ENABLED for the single-processor benchmarks, but DISABLED for the multi-processor benchmarks, despite the fact that hyperthreading would have improved the performance of the multi-processor "Rate" benchmarks, while having little or no effect on the single-processor benchmarks. In either case, this performance-enhancing feature of the Intel processors should not have been disabled.
===========================
Integer Results (SPECint_base2000, higher is better)
SPECint_base2000 is a single-processor test, so in the following results, where the computer has a second processor, it is either disabled or not used.
(Spec Scores from Article...)
Apple Power Mac G5
(PPC 970 2.0 GHz)
(Results by Apple/Veritest):___800
Dell Precision 650
(P4 Xeon 3.06 GHz)
(Results by Apple/Veritest):___836
Dell Dimension 8300
(P4 3.0 GHz)
(Results by Apple/Veritest):___889
I tend to get annoyed when Apple keeps comparing their machines to Intel based machines, even as AMD becomes a bigger and bigger part of the market, especially with the Opteron and upcoming Athlon64. Plus too, everybody knows that AMD performs better than Intel
As for Apple's lack of cutting edge, I actually think of it as the opposite. Apple tends to be the first to incorporate new industry wide technologies. As far as I know the G5 is the first consumer home PC to offer a next generation PCI bus. Apple was also the first to get behind DVD burners and Firewire (which, it seems, has yet to really cetch on in the PC world.) Also think they were one of the first to put gigabite LAN in their computers.
Where Apple fails is performance. I really don't know how, but Apple machines just never seem to be able to perform as well as PCs in most instances. Even with the impressive specs the G5 sports (dual 2Ghz 64bit processors, 1Ghz bus) it still can not compete with x86 systems. Apple's super big failure though is price. It hurts me to think of excuse they can come up with to sell computers for 4000+ dollars, when you can make or buy a similar Intel or AMD system for 1000, 1500, even 2000 dollars less.
And for god sacks, can't they make a mouse with two buttons?
Let me clarify, by cutting edge, I was trying to refer to a machine that is the best-performer, not a machine that has the most (at least for now) useless gadgets.
0
Geeky1University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
edited June 2003
Apple's machines are good looking, well designed (go work in a g4 tower- the blue ones. There is a bunch of integrated cable routing features) easy to use, and dead slow and overpriced. Id they were faster, cheaper and had 2-button mice with scroll wheels, I'd consider one as a serious computer. until then, they're toys...
Erm, XP is just as easy to use as a Mac, and easy to do more custom stuff. And it is way easy for Mac to do "innovative" stuff. They make the hardware, and don't have to worry about standards, because they make them. My main problem with macs is compatibility. And the price sucks, and the upgrade options suck too.... I am not sure if there is anything I do like... maybe things like DVD-R drives become more standard on Macs rather than PCs.
xp looks gay. xp is windows based, and therfore not as stable as OSX because xp is not *NIX based. xp isnt as easy to use as OSX. Apple stick to standards just like PCs; AGP, PCI, USB, FireWire, 802.11, ethernet, gigabit, DVD-R, bluetooth etc.
The PC industry rely on Apple to copy theur innovations.
nuff said.
They are kinda expensive though.
mD
0
BlackHawkBible music connoisseurThere's no place like 127.0.0.1Icrontian
edited June 2003
I don't think stability is argueable cause if you setup correctly, it will run for weeks. I just reboot for maintnence and installing stuff and ocasionally when the power goes out. I don't like Apple cause it's damn slower. As for the "innovations", If I don't need it, I don't care. Main thing is the price. For what a top of the line G5 costs, you can build like 2-3 top of the line PC's that blow it away. As for how "purdy" it is, if I wanted my PC that "purdy" I would've modded it and they'll probably make one for PC later on.
If it werent for Apple USB wouldnt be mainstream, 802.11 wouldnt be mainstream, get the point? These are technologies that are extremely popular today because of Apple's work over the past few years.
Windows machines arent as stable as *NIX machines no matter how you set them up. They are also insecure.
That tuxtime logo in my sig is off a windows 2000 machine. That machine has been running for a month, and its practically useless unless its rebooted.
*NIX machines can run for years.
When using a Mac in a real world situation, you cant tell wether its faster than a PC or not.
My G4 iMac is faster in photoshop than my AXP based PC, even tough it runs at about 1/4 the clock speed. The power pc is a superior architecture to x86, i admit though that this is all about to change with the AMD64 architecture.
Apple G5s arent that much more expensive than a crappy intel box. In some magazine i was reading, a dual xeon setup from Armari comes in at arround £2700. The G5 is actually cheaper - £600 cheaper. You could upgrade the graphics card and add more storage with the money you save.
USB is an Intel spec (ie PC Standard). About 100x more USB equipped PCs are shipped every month (and have been for the last 3 yrs) than Apple makes period. Apple promoted Firewire
You say that Photoshop runs faster on your G4 (at 1/4 the clock speed) than your Athlon XP. Prove it! Post the specs of both your G4 and your Athlon setup and then run the latest version of Photoshop on both.
Everytime Apple tries to show how SLOW it isn't they trot out an Limited Photoshop benchmark comparison. Benchmark every Photoshop function and then tell the truth.
Macs are overpriced Toys (and there's nothing wrong with an overpriced Toy I know I love mine)
xp looks gay. xp is windows based, and therfore not as stable as OSX because xp is not *NIX based
I didn't know OSes had sexual orientation
As for the stability prove it. Apple OSX machines crash at their own Expos during presentation......
That tuxtime logo in my sig is off a windows 2000 machine. That machine has been running for a month, and its practically useless unless its rebooted.
My Win XP machine has been running (Overclocked) 24/7 for the last 2 months running F@H
If your Win 2K machine is useless without rebooting, the only thing it prove is you don't know what your doing. I only rebooted my Win2K machine when I upgraded Hardware.
Id like to add, all this vaunted talk of *nix better than windows is all well and good, but for a small to medium business with a limited budget windows and pcs are the best choice as you dont have to pay over the odds for hardware and training on *nix.
In my opinion the only place macs have in the corporate world is as DTP machines and nothing else.
Also our NT 4 server has outlasted our linux server in uptime
I think it's important to point out that, in the "real world tests", the G5 blew the the intel machine out of the water. In the real world apps, the G5 was consitently twice as fast as its intel counterpart. As for people criticizing mac OS X, please don't comment unless you actually own a Mac or have used OS X extensively. It IS stable, the only time I reboot is to install an update (thats right, haven't crashed once). It simply doesn't crash - and don't get me started about it's superior interface
I find it very frustrating when people make negative comments on anything without having any experience with the topic at hand.
I have had "extensive" experience with OSX. Don't pretend like "not crashing once" is a big deal. I haven't crashed on 2k/XP in the past 3.5 years, unless it was my fault (overclocking too much, etc). And OS X does crash, so does *nix, it has happened to me. Granted, every OS can crash... And OSX is slower on ALL my friends new macs than it is on my year and a half old PC (running XP). Besides, please take note of the info Omega65 has supplied us with. That explains the blowing out of the water. I think the OSX Gui is alright... but nothing to go wacko about. I still prefer XP with some theme.
And XP is not based on the same "windows" as 98 was, it is based more on NT, 2k, which are just as stable as *nix, IME (I decided to use a new [to me] acronym. In My Experience, too bad it is already taken, but I think context should give it away). Anyway, if we are talking about hardware, then OS isn't much of an issue. Cause PCs run *nix, too, it isn't necessarily Windows.
What's most disturbing is that they are advertising these as "The World's Fastest PC's". I ask you Mr. Jobs define PC, in the past its been your enemy and now you've decided to adopt the name? This is all an advertising ploy.
On topic of os,
If you aren't a retard and go download bunch of shit from www.weswearthisisntavirusyouredownloading.com, then your pc wont crash. If you aren't a moron under light usage (no overclocking) your pc should remain stable very often.
Besides if my computer restarts once every three months but is still 3 times faster than an equally priced mac machine, then shit i'll take that sacrifice. If i want bubble icons i'll download some, honestly what is so good about osx? I went to the store and it just seemed boring.
I sometimes think Mac users are too blind or stubborn to see the light of day.
Sure, Macs are stylish, but they're also expensive. They have quirks, like the single mouse button. And they don't perform very well. That's why lies have to be constructed to sell them.
I would never buy a Mac desktop, but I admit that the Powerbooks are somewhat attractive. Too bad they're way out of my price range.
And how are there Mac supporters/users on the Icrontic forum??? I thought this was a PC hardware site.
We had to do a couple of assignements on Macs as part of my Uni degree last year. They wanted us to be 'familiar with all types of PC'.... Yes, I thought that...
They are 'ok' but only ok. Im not likely to buy one, but i do see them as useful in some situations. Im doing a GIS based degree (Geographical information systems - Geography and computers basically, terrain mapping basically...), and there are some useful Mac only packages avilable.
i used to hate macs...then i started writing music. i agree that macs suck when it comes to games, there ar ejust not enough good games out there on mac. period. but fer average users who can afford it, a mac is the way to go, so much simpler to use. and all the every day apps are available on mac, word, ie, etc. but when it comes to specialized industries, macs are also the way to go. final cut pro is the defacto standard in filmmaking and is only available on mac. alotta 3d rendering is done on mac. and music composition, sampling, mixing, all done better on mac. i personally own a 17" powerbook and 2 windows machines. i'll be looking into getting a G5 sooner or later. i don't think either side should be bashing their opposite sides. i can tell you right now i've had my PB crash on me once or twice, but i've had winXP crash as well. both platforms have their shortcomings.
Originally posted by mr.FU i used to hate macs...then i started writing music. i agree that macs suck when it comes to games, there ar ejust not enough good games out there on mac. period. but fer average users who can afford it, a mac is the way to go, so much simpler to use. and all the every day apps are available on mac, word, ie, etc. but when it comes to specialized industries, macs are also the way to go. final cut pro is the defacto standard in filmmaking and is only available on mac. alotta 3d rendering is done on mac. and music composition, sampling, mixing, all done better on mac. i personally own a 17" powerbook and 2 windows machines. i'll be looking into getting a G5 sooner or later. i don't think either side should be bashing their opposite sides. i can tell you right now i've had my PB crash on me once or twice, but i've had winXP crash as well. both platforms have their shortcomings.
If by specialized industries you mean only filmmaking and song writing then yes. For average users who can afford it why not go with something that's 2x as powerful? Windows xp isn't that complicated and if they want something not complicated then buy a damn internet pc.
Please do me a favor and define average users. Because on average most user's use windows, on average most users have intel processors, and on average users pay below $1000 for a computer, so please do me a favor and give me your definition of "average user" and please tell me how apple is the right way to go for average users...
average users who can afford to buy an apple and like the aesthetic qualities of an apple product, for example a celebrity or insurance agent :P someone who just day to day stuff on a comp and has oodles of dough
leave macs alone. I like going up to the local computer shop and looking at them and going ohhh prettys. Then looking at the price and saying pffft.
0
Geeky1University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA, USA)
edited July 2003
Komete;
The fact that they look good doesn't overcome the fact that they're dead f***ing S-L-O-W. You'd think that 2 2GHz CPUs w/1GHz FSBs and 512k of L2 cache would easily outperform a 3GHz P4-C or 3200+, but the fact of the matter is that it doesn't. Apple knows how to manipulate statistics to say what they want them to, and they do it well. The performance charts on their website are totally invalid. The G5 is a fast computer, but it's nowhere near as fast as a top-of-the-line PC, and you can get a Dual Athlon MP 2600+ system with 2GB of DDR, a 160GB hdd, and a Sony DVD-RW/+RW drive and a 256MB Radeon 9800 for ~$1500 less than a dual 1GHz G5 with 1GB of ram and a 128mb R9800...
Basically, Macs would be passable if they cost ~50% of what they do. For the amount they cost, their performance is pathetic.
Comments
The G5 has impressive specs! The 3 PCI-X Slots is awesome, not to mention the 1ghz FSB.
However waiting in the wings to rain on Apple's parade......
SPEC CPU 2000 Benchmark
SPECfp_rate_base_2000
Dual G5 2ghz: 15.7
Dual Xeon 3.06ghz: 11.1
P4 3.0ghz: 8.07
Opteron 244 (single - 1.80ghz): 13.0
Opteron 244 (dual - 1.80ghz): 27.7
Opteron 844 (Quad - 1.80ghz): 44.2
Athlon XP 2800+(2.25ghz): 9.07
Dual MP 2400+(2.00ghz) : 10.5
Source: SPEC.org
Lies, Damn Lies & Benchmarks!
===========================
Integer Results (SPECint_base2000, higher is better)
SPECint_base2000 is a single-processor test, so in the following results, where the computer has a second processor, it is either disabled or not used.
(Spec Scores from Article...)
Apple Power Mac G5
(PPC 970 2.0 GHz)
(Results by Apple/Veritest):___800
Dell Precision 650
(P4 Xeon 3.06 GHz)
(Results by Apple/Veritest):___836
Dell Dimension 8300
(P4 3.0 GHz)
(Results by Apple/Veritest):___889
AMD Athlon XP 3200+ (2.2 GHz)
(Results by AMD):___________1044
Dell Precision 650 (P4 Xeon 3.06 GHz)
(Results by Dell):____________1089
Intel P4 (3.0 GHz)
(Results by Intel):___________1152
============================
More Lies by Apple!
And to think If they'ld just used the AMD Opteron They WOULD be the Fastest Video/Image computers!
Omega65
Apple have never been cutting edge in hardware or software...granny's AOL machine is what an apple is good for.
Plus, no matter how good it might seems, after all it runs MacOS, nobody in their right mind would want that...0 compatibility.
EG. Powerbook with 17" screen, iPod, gigabit lan, wireless, USB, user interface etc.
mD
As for Apple's lack of cutting edge, I actually think of it as the opposite. Apple tends to be the first to incorporate new industry wide technologies. As far as I know the G5 is the first consumer home PC to offer a next generation PCI bus. Apple was also the first to get behind DVD burners and Firewire (which, it seems, has yet to really cetch on in the PC world.) Also think they were one of the first to put gigabite LAN in their computers.
Where Apple fails is performance. I really don't know how, but Apple machines just never seem to be able to perform as well as PCs in most instances. Even with the impressive specs the G5 sports (dual 2Ghz 64bit processors, 1Ghz bus) it still can not compete with x86 systems. Apple's super big failure though is price. It hurts me to think of excuse they can come up with to sell computers for 4000+ dollars, when you can make or buy a similar Intel or AMD system for 1000, 1500, even 2000 dollars less.
And for god sacks, can't they make a mouse with two buttons?
The PC industry rely on Apple to copy theur innovations.
nuff said.
They are kinda expensive though.
mD
Windows machines arent as stable as *NIX machines no matter how you set them up. They are also insecure.
That tuxtime logo in my sig is off a windows 2000 machine. That machine has been running for a month, and its practically useless unless its rebooted.
*NIX machines can run for years.
When using a Mac in a real world situation, you cant tell wether its faster than a PC or not.
My G4 iMac is faster in photoshop than my AXP based PC, even tough it runs at about 1/4 the clock speed. The power pc is a superior architecture to x86, i admit though that this is all about to change with the AMD64 architecture.
Apple G5s arent that much more expensive than a crappy intel box. In some magazine i was reading, a dual xeon setup from Armari comes in at arround £2700. The G5 is actually cheaper - £600 cheaper. You could upgrade the graphics card and add more storage with the money you save.
mD
USB is an Intel spec (ie PC Standard). About 100x more USB equipped PCs are shipped every month (and have been for the last 3 yrs) than Apple makes period. Apple promoted Firewire
You say that Photoshop runs faster on your G4 (at 1/4 the clock speed) than your Athlon XP. Prove it! Post the specs of both your G4 and your Athlon setup and then run the latest version of Photoshop on both.
Everytime Apple tries to show how SLOW it isn't they trot out an Limited Photoshop benchmark comparison. Benchmark every Photoshop function and then tell the truth.
Macs are overpriced Toys (and there's nothing wrong with an overpriced Toy
xp looks gay. xp is windows based, and therfore not as stable as OSX because xp is not *NIX based
I didn't know OSes had sexual orientation
As for the stability prove it. Apple OSX machines crash at their own Expos during presentation......
That tuxtime logo in my sig is off a windows 2000 machine. That machine has been running for a month, and its practically useless unless its rebooted.
My Win XP machine has been running (Overclocked) 24/7 for the last 2 months running F@H
If your Win 2K machine is useless without rebooting, the only thing it prove is you don't know what your doing. I only rebooted my Win2K machine when I upgraded Hardware.
In my opinion the only place macs have in the corporate world is as DTP machines and nothing else.
Also our NT 4 server has outlasted our linux server in uptime
i have to laugh when i sold a mac last week to a couple who wanted to run windows on it.
i smiled and agreed it was a super idea.
they look great. but are SH!T
I find it very frustrating when people make negative comments on anything without having any experience with the topic at hand.
Also, watch Steve Job's keynote.
QuickTime Stream
And XP is not based on the same "windows" as 98 was, it is based more on NT, 2k, which are just as stable as *nix, IME (I decided to use a new [to me] acronym. In My Experience, too bad it is already taken, but I think context should give it away). Anyway, if we are talking about hardware, then OS isn't much of an issue. Cause PCs run *nix, too, it isn't necessarily Windows.
On topic of os,
If you aren't a retard and go download bunch of shit from www.weswearthisisntavirusyouredownloading.com, then your pc wont crash. If you aren't a moron under light usage (no overclocking) your pc should remain stable very often.
Besides if my computer restarts once every three months but is still 3 times faster than an equally priced mac machine, then shit i'll take that sacrifice. If i want bubble icons i'll download some, honestly what is so good about osx? I went to the store and it just seemed boring.
Sure, Macs are stylish, but they're also expensive. They have quirks, like the single mouse button. And they don't perform very well. That's why lies have to be constructed to sell them.
I would never buy a Mac desktop, but I admit that the Powerbooks are somewhat attractive. Too bad they're way out of my price range.
And how are there Mac supporters/users on the Icrontic forum??? I thought this was a PC hardware site.
- mako
Two-Faced Mac user
Maybe I should put something about "Mac Zealot" in there too...
Well ive worked with macs for two years and they are crap
They are 'ok' but only ok. Im not likely to buy one, but i do see them as useful in some situations. Im doing a GIS based degree (Geographical information systems - Geography and computers basically, terrain mapping basically...), and there are some useful Mac only packages avilable.
My two cents...
If by specialized industries you mean only filmmaking and song writing then yes. For average users who can afford it why not go with something that's 2x as powerful? Windows xp isn't that complicated and if they want something not complicated then buy a damn internet pc.
Please do me a favor and define average users. Because on average most user's use windows, on average most users have intel processors, and on average users pay below $1000 for a computer, so please do me a favor and give me your definition of "average user" and please tell me how apple is the right way to go for average users...
The fact that they look good doesn't overcome the fact that they're dead f***ing S-L-O-W. You'd think that 2 2GHz CPUs w/1GHz FSBs and 512k of L2 cache would easily outperform a 3GHz P4-C or 3200+, but the fact of the matter is that it doesn't. Apple knows how to manipulate statistics to say what they want them to, and they do it well. The performance charts on their website are totally invalid. The G5 is a fast computer, but it's nowhere near as fast as a top-of-the-line PC, and you can get a Dual Athlon MP 2600+ system with 2GB of DDR, a 160GB hdd, and a Sony DVD-RW/+RW drive and a 256MB Radeon 9800 for ~$1500 less than a dual 1GHz G5 with 1GB of ram and a 128mb R9800...
Basically, Macs would be passable if they cost ~50% of what they do. For the amount they cost, their performance is pathetic.