Operating Systems > macOS
The G5
Zombie9920:
Here are accurate Spec scores.
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q3/
As you can see, the P4 does much better than what Apple claims. The P4 does better than the G5(I'm sure you all have already seen the G5 results at their best@apples' web site). Apple lies, end of story.
(EDIT)So The highest end P4 outperforms the highest end G5 in everything but Photoshop in the real-world. I can really say that doesn't surprise me at all.
[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
psyjax:
Here is the register article on the G5 benchmarks:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/32498.html
At the bottom you will find an article arguing about Apple's version of the SPEC scores, which are well defended in the following article:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/31416.html
Infact, Apple's benchmarks are on the concervative end. They are lower than the G5 chip in other tests. So, saying the x86 performed 1200, isn't taking into account the methodology of the test.
As we all know, tests are never 100 percent, and you can allways weigh the data one way or another, but by all accounts apple did a fair test, and their results are acurate. Again, see the above articles.
Zombie9920:
Really, I don't believe for a minute that Apple did a fair test simply because of their published results for Quake III on a Pentium 4. Everybody knows that a Pentium 4 scores way higher than what Apple posted in Quake III.
Disabling SSE2 optimizations on the P4 and leaving G5 optimizations enabled is not fair testing. When you test a CPU you test it with everything it has to offer.
If you want to disable optimizations for 1 CPU you have to disable the optimizations on the other CPU for it to be considered a fair test.
Nonetheless, Every benchmark aside from Apples' benchmarks shows that the P4 is indeed faster than what Apple claims and is indeed faster than the G5 in everything but Photoshop. Apples' CPU's have always excelled@photoshop(even the G3's).
Apple can not fool me because I know better than to trust hardware manufacturers' benchmarks. They all lie, Apple is no different.
The G5 is indeed competitive, I won't hesitate to admit that, but it simply does not have x86 beat. The Prescott is right around the corner as well. Next year we will be seeing the Tejas(Pentium V). IBM is going to have to do some major work to their CPU's if they want them to remain competitve to the Athlon FX, Pentium 4 Prescott and the upcoming Pentium V. If they don't Apple will be left in the dust in terms of performance once again(like how the P4/Athlon XP left the G4's in the dust as they got faster and faster).
mushrooomprince:
quote: Really, I don't believe for a minute that Apple did a fair test simply because of their published results for Quake III on a Pentium 4. Everybody knows that a Pentium 4 scores way higher than what Apple posted in Quake III.
--- End quote ---
As of now it doesn't really matter if the pentium 4 is faster than the dual G5. The G5 can make use of twice as much memory as the Pentium 4.
On top of that, with Suns new chip technology on the horizon I don't think Pentium 4's have much of a future in anything.
Not that I'm biased to anyone. But I'm convinced that for price/performance right now the best cpu on the market is the Athlon 2200.
And if your some poor farmer that lives in Ecuador. Your most likely going to get a nice 1.3 ghz Duron.
Intel has no future. Theyre pushing the clockspeed on those P4's as much as they can.
And as for the G5 ? Well what makes the G5 better than the Pentium 4 isn't how well it can run Quake 3 but how well it can run OS X.
Zombie9920:
You don't get it man. This isn't about Quake III. The main reason why I beleive SPEC results published on SPEC's page for the P4 over Apples' SPEC results posted for a P4 is because 1. SPEC doesn't post biased results and 2. Apple clearly lied about the P4's Quake III performance(if hey are going to lie about 1 thing they are going to lie about everything). It isn't about how fast the P4 runs Quake III, it is about Apple lying about it's true performance. Please understand that. Please understand that SPEC in no way has anything to do with Quake III. Furthermore, the P4 is faster at Lightwave, Cinebench(a CPU intensive benchmark), UT2k3, etc.
Actually, the AXP 2500+ Barton offers the best price/performance ration in the AMD camp. Nothing in the AMD camp can beat the P4 2.4c ghz's price/performance ratio though. That chip is a little more expensive than the Athlon 2500+ Barton(it is $170) but it can be overclocked to 3.2ghz with stock air-cooling with no hitch. In the end, you get a high-end chip for the price of a budget level chip. I think I'd rather spend $300 on a P4 2.4c and a good i865 motherboard for it and run it @ 3.2ghz(which beats out an Athlon XP 3200+ with no trouble at all) than spend about $200 on a Athlon 2200+(like you suggested) and a decent motherboard for it and only have it able to overclock to a little over 2300+ specs.
The speed potential differnce between what you suggested and that p4 2.4c is worth the extra $100. $300 for 3.2ghz w/800mhz FSB and Hyperthreading is a steal...it really is.
[ September 29, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version