The G5

[Zombie9920]

quote:Originally posted by Jimmy's Always On Topic:
that's testing defaults across the board.

theyr'e using the default OpenGL for Quake, instead of optimized DirectX drivers. it's not exactly a good test of the processor, because MS's OpenGL implementation isn't as fast as it could be, and the video card is still going to be different. It's not an issue though, because GL is nearly always accelerated through DirectX drivers on Windows, while OS X relies solely on OpenGL.

actual results of running Quake3 on Windows will be markedly better, because of DirectX

[ September 27, 2003: Message edited by: Jimmy's Always On Topic ]

What? Quake III doesn't have Direct3D support. ID Software has always supported OpenGL and OpenGL only. There are no if's ands or buts, Apple is a lying sack of shit.

[ September 27, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]

[hm_murdock]

let's not forget the Flawed Study of 1995, where MS payed off IDG to run a study of UIs, including Windows 95, Mac System 7, and the OS/2 Workplace Shell.

All participants were pulled from "random" samples... fortunately for MS, though, their pool of "random" people all happened to be Win95 beta testers. How convenient!

And the instructions for the test were all tasks specific to Windows, such as "install a print driver"... concepts that are drastically different in both OS/2 and System 7. Terms used in the instructions were things that users of other UIs would be unfamiliar with, as well.

When this was over, they came out and said that Win95 was the "best UI".

All that proves is that MS is a lying sack of shit.

Then they came out with all those lies about 98 and Me, and their recent "trustworthy computing" bull... which can be definitively disproved, what with the rising number of security and malware problems with Windows.

All that proves is that MS is a lying sack of shit.

I wouldn't have a problem running windows if anybody but MS made it... but MS is about the shittiest, shiftiest bunch of crapmasters I've ever seen. Apple is spiteful and recalcitrant, but MS is a bunch of shysters and con men.

[mushrooomprince]

the G5 is good but im still going to get me a SUn machine in 2005.

[cahult]

Well, what was it she said in the Bond movie "Goldeneye": You

[Zombie9920]

Nahh, I'm not arguing over FPS because quite frankly, the Human eye can't tell the difference between 100FPS and 500FPS.

The whole point of the whole FPS thing is Apple does not disclose true benchmarks. They do everything in their power to cripple the Pentium that they are comparing their chips to so their cpu's look like they are so superior. The Quake III benchmark is not the only benchmark that Apple did this with for the G5. They also pulled the same shit with the G5 SPEC benchmarks. It is Deja Vu all over again....Apple did this same shit with the G4 and the G3.  

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/31405.html

You simply can't trust benchmarks that are disclosed by Apple. Apple fabricates their CPU's with lies. Lies that Mac users really beleive are true.

[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]

[hm_murdock]

nah. I don't believe em. the dual 5s might be fast, but they're not that fast. my 1.6 is hella quick, and for the things I do, I wouldn't use anything else... but for sheer speed, yeah, a 3GHz + P4 is gonna own it.

as for what I said earlier re: GL and DX, Windows' OpenGL subsystem uses the DirectX drivers instead of relying on generic GL calls, which improves its speed dramatically. Mac OS X uses raw GL.

Straight DirectX is faster still. OS X just isn't built for 3D games. It outdoes Windows with media work, though XP is no slouch there. I've done audio production on XP Pro and it's not bad. Configuring the hardware was nowhere near as simple, but it wasn't impossible either.

here, I gotta knock Linux... there's no way it'll do either high end games, or demanding media work. it's just not cut out for it. there's no interest in doing serious A/V work on UNIX

[Parrott]

yeah here here they had to cheat to try to make themselves look good


nvidia anyone?

[Zombie9920]

To be fair, I don't trust comparision benchmarks sanctioned by the company who made the hardware...no matter who the company is.

I wouldn't trust Intel sanctioned comparison benchmarks, AMD sanctioned benchmarks, Nvidia sanctioned benchmarks, ATI sanctioned benchmarks, etc. I don't trust benchmarks done by individual reviewers with a bias for a certain company either.

It is a known fact that the maker of the hardware will do whatever they can to make their hardware look like it is the best.

The only time I trust comparision benchmarks is when they are done by repituable, non-biased reviewers(like [H]ardOCP ).

[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]

[preacher]

quote:Originally posted by Jimmy's Always On Topic:
nah. I don't believe em. the dual 5s might be fast, but they're not that fast. my 1.6 is hella quick, and for the things I do, I wouldn't use anything else... but for sheer speed, yeah, a 3GHz + P4 is gonna own it.

as for what I said earlier re: GL and DX, Windows' OpenGL subsystem uses the DirectX drivers instead of relying on generic GL calls, which improves its speed dramatically. Mac OS X uses raw GL.

Straight DirectX is faster still. OS X just isn't built for 3D games. It outdoes Windows with media work, though XP is no slouch there. I've done audio production on XP Pro and it's not bad. Configuring the hardware was nowhere near as simple, but it wasn't impossible either.

here, I gotta knock Linux... there's no way it'll do either high end games, or demanding media work. it's just not cut out for it. there's no interest in doing serious A/V work on UNIX

Listen to you, its a proven fact that Quake 3 runs faster on linux with OpenGL, on the exact same pc with Windows installed. Ive seen this time and time again. According to you it would run slower because linux is not suitable for games.

The truth of the matter is that you have no clue what you are talking about, so you should just be quiet. Linux is just as powerful an OS as any Microsoft product and Im sick of people like you trash talking it.

Thats ok though, Im going to play Unreal Tournament 2003 at 1600 x 1200 with anisotropic filtering on my horribly weak and pitiful OS that sucks at games. Soon I will play Doom3 on my OS that is good for nothing but being a server.

[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: ThePreacher ]

[Zombie9920]

quote:Originally posted by Jimmy's Always On Topic:
that's testing defaults across the board.

theyr'e using the default OpenGL for Quake, instead of optimized DirectX drivers. it's not exactly a good test of the processor, because MS's OpenGL implementation isn't as fast as it could be, and the video card is still going to be different. It's not an issue though, because GL is nearly always accelerated through DirectX drivers on Windows, while OS X relies solely on OpenGL.

actual results of running Quake3 on Windows will be markedly better, because of DirectX

[ September 27, 2003: Message edited by: Jimmy's Always On Topic ]

OpenGL in Windows isn't tied into the DirectX sub-system at all. OpenGL is a standard Open Graphics Library that remains the same on all platforms. OpenGL on Windows, OpenGL on Linux, OpenGL on Unix, OpenGL on MacOS, OpenGL on BeOS, etc. is the same. It uses the same library with the same extensions, etc. That is why OpenGL is called cross platform.

MS only allows DirectX calls, extensions, acceleration, etc. to be used with DirectX. MS would be foolish to add DirectX acceleration to OpenGL because 1. That would give OpenGL what it needs to be graphically comparable to DirectX 8/9 and 2. OpenGL is open source, if MS added DirectX code to it anybody could view the source code of the MS modified OpenGL and steal some of the propriatary code of DirectX that was tied into it.

MS doesn't offer updates to OpenGL either. Nope, if you want OpenGL 1.4 in Windows it is included with NVidia's Detonator XP drivers, ATI's newer Catalyst drivers, Matrox's Pariphiela drivers, etc. or you have to go download it from OpenGL.org .

MS has nothing to do with OpenGL and MS certainly isn't going to help further the devolpment of it and add extra speed and features to it.

[Zombie9920]

quote:Originally posted by ThePreacher:


Listen to you, its a proven fact that Quake 3 runs faster on linux with OpenGL, on the exact same pc with Windows installed. Ive seen this time and time again. According to you it would run slower because linux is not suitable for games.

The truth of the matter is that you have no clue what you are talking about, so you should just be quiet. Linux is just as powerful an OS as any Microsoft product and Im sick of people like you trash talking it.

That is because you can't enable Anisotropic filtering and Full Scene Anti-Alasing in OpenGL games on Linux. More times than not people at have thier anisotropic filtering set to least 16tap in Windows. In Linux those games run with Bi-Linear filtering. That difference alone will make it look like it is faster in Linux than it is in Windows.

With the newer video cards drivers(like Detonator 20.xx all the way to the new Det 50.xx drivers) for Windows you can't even put anisotropic filtering in bi-linear mode. Point-sprite rendering is the lowest you can go in Windows anymore. Point sprite rendering is slower than Bi-Linear but looks a little better....16tap and above blows point sprites and bi-linear out of the water when it comes to image quality.

Anyways, OpenGL has the same performance capabilities accross any platform(because it remains unchanged no matter what platform you use it on). How fast it runs depends on your hardware and in Windows OGL speed depends on how you have the video driver configured(since Windows drivers get all of the cool visual enhancement capabilites).

I think I'd rather play Quake III w/64-tap anisotropic filtering and 4x or better Anti-alasing @ 140FPS over running it with no FSAA and low LOD anisotropic filter@ 350+ FPS anyday.

[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]

[preacher]

By the way viper, ive never heard of the extreme edition P4. Is it out yet? Is it the response from intel to the athlon64?

[Zombie9920]

quote:Originally posted by ThePreacher:
By the way viper, ive never heard of the extreme edition P4. Is it out yet? Is it the response from intel to the athlon64?

The Extreme Edition is a P4c 800mhz FSB w/Hyperthreading w/2MB of cache instead of the traditional 512kb of cache on all other Northwoods.

It was made to fill the gap between the AthlonFX and the P4 until the Prescott is released.

Yes, the P4EE is available now and will work in any motherboard that supports the P4c.

Realistically, not many people are not going to buy a P4EE just like not many people are going to buy an Athlon FX due to the ridiculously high price for the performance that it has to offer.

Anybody with common sense will buy something like a 2.4c and a i865PE w/PAT enabled motherboard for $300 and overclock it to 3.1-3.2ghz. That is more than fast enough for what most people need out their computer. The P4 2.4c and i865 Combo is even $150-$175 cheaper than an Athlon 64(non-FX) CPU alone. The price-performance award clearly goes to the 2.4c+i865PE. Intel really outdid themselves with the 2.4c and the i865 chipset...literally.

[psyjax]

Hey Viper,

the G5 IS faster than any PIV, and indeed faster than any comp on the market. The tests Apple did were fair, and openly published. When they were contested by various detractors, Apple offered to do their test, and guess what! Those tests came out worse!!

As it turned out, Apple had chosen the best test available. For example, some folks complained that because they used gcc for both systems tor un the compile tests, that someone was getting screwd, (hyperthreading was off on the PIV), it turned out P4 was slower when they turned on Hyperthreading.

The article is old, it's in the register when the hoolabaloo started. Get a clue, Apple wiped the floor shinny with your pathetic x86 frankenboxes. Why else do you think the Navy, Virginia Tech, amongst others, are now building G5 superclusters that trounce any pice of crap winshit box.

Finaly, as far as Quake3 Goes, has anyone actually noticed what kind of Vid card was used!!! For gods sake, everyone knows it's your vidcard over the mobo.

So shut up, and go suck on your x86 nuttbag all you want.

(ahhh... felt like flamin    )

[Zombie9920]

Oh yeah. It is fair for Apple to test a G5 with all of it's optimizations but test the P4 without SSE2.

Riiiiggghhtt.  :rolleyes: