Mac G5 cant beat Athlon 64

[preacher]

Well I finally found some comparison tests of the two big names in desktop 64 bit computing, and it looks like the Athlon 64 FX is the winner here. Im sure that someone will disagree with these benchmarks, but hey someone always does.

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,8,00.asp

[psyjax]

quote:Originally posted by ThePreacher:
Well I finally found some comparison tests of the two big names in desktop 64 bit computing, and it looks like the Athlon 64 FX is the winner here. Im sure that someone will disagree with these benchmarks, but hey someone always does.

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,8,00.asp

Im sick of benchmarks. Didn't zombie post a bunch the other day that had the PIV and the G5 thrashing the athalon?

.... Hold the phone...

Did you notice these were Quake Tests? And the Athalon FX had more video RAM, not only that, they don't mention the kind of vid card used.

Secondly, they chose two slow programs. Word (like I really need a speed monster to format a spreadsheet) and Premire (Whith an outdated OSX version, which is not supported anymore). Now, I will conseed, that it is very debatable as to the G5's supremacy, none the less, these benchmarks smell like bullshit.

[preacher]

quote:Originally posted by psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax:


Im sick of benchmarks. Didn't zombie post a bunch the other day that had the PIV and the G5 thrashing the athalon?

.... Hold the phone...

Did you notice these were Quake Tests? And the Athalon FX had more video RAM, not only that, they don't mention the kind of vid card used.

Secondly, they chose two slow programs. Word (like I really need a speed monster to format a spreadsheet) and Premire (Whith an outdated OSX version, which is not supported anymore). Now, I will conseed, that it is very debatable as to the G5's supremacy, none the less, these benchmarks smell like bullshit.

"We tested three systems using the high-end 2.2-GHz Athlon 64 FX-51 chip with dual-channel memory, and a PC with the more mainstream Athlon 64 3200+, which runs at 2 GHz and has single-channel memory. We also looked at an identically configured 3.2-GHz P4 PC for comparison. All PCs had 1GB of DDR400 memory and an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro graphics card. All tests were performed with 32-bit software."

Ok psyjax, read the whole article next time before you start shouting. The computers had equal amounts of ram and used the same video card. Also the benchmarks werent just done by pcworld, but were done in conjunction with macworld magazine. They decided on tests that would be unbiased. Now you tell me why a dual 2 ghz G5 with 1gb of DDR400 memory and a radeon 9800 pro graphics card, cant beat a dual 2 ghz Opteron with 1gb of DDR400 memory and a radeon 9800 pro graphics card in an adobe photoshop test. Photoshop is the main application that Apple claims runs so much faster on their computers.

I didnt expect anyone to believe me, but its funny hearing responses.

[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: ThePreacher ]

[psyjax]

I dunno, same reason the G5 beats the shit out of the 64Bit FX at photoshop, and at Quake on the Opteron.

You did notice that the G5's PS7 scores were the best overal didn't you? The Opteron is the one that scored a bit better. Marginaly I might add.

Which leads me to wonder... why the hell is the Opteron, a lower end processor than the FX, scoring better than the FX? I thought these were acurate benchmarks  

And I said before, the two main apps in the benchmarks were Word, and Premiere, two slow programms, one severely outdated.

And I did read the whole article, dosn't change the fact that the chart on thw Alianware systems reads 256MB video memory, and as I understand it they had RAID Hardrives as well.

I still cry bullshit.

Mainly, because I can dig up the old benchmarks Zombie posted which showd the AMD64 lagging way behind the P4 and the G5.

I still say, all the benchmarks, even the Apple ones are slanted, inacurate, etc.

You wanna know which is faster? See which one works the best for you. End of story.

[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax ]

[Pissed_Macman]

Comparisons like that are always biased either for or against mac. Best to ignore them.

[Zombie9920]

Actually the benches I posted had the Pentium 4 and G5 thrashing the Athlon 64. The Athlon FX performed around 5-7% better than the 3.2ghz P4 at 32-bit(at a much higher price mind you) and around 10-14% better than the G5. The G5 thrashed the x86 CPU's at photoshop and did slightly better at one other bench(I don't remeber which one) but that was about it. However, the higher numbers don't really mean that much because they all did extremely well with everything that was thrown at them. The G5 isn't the top dawg but it is competitive.  

In my opinion there is a point to where something is so fast that speed differences no longer matter.

My CPU loyality lies in the Pentium 4 2.4c right now because it is reasonably priced and it overclocks to 3.2ghz with no hitch. You get high end performance for not such a high end price.

[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]

[TheKnifeThrower]

Who cares if the G5 is a little slower than the AMD/Intel processors. It doesn't matter.

Well yes it does matter considering apple PC's are fucking expensive and they lie about how the G5 is the fastest processor.

[Zombie9920]

I do disagree with Apple blatently lying to the world about their computers and the processors in their computers. That is a corporation for you though.

[psyjax]

quote:Originally posted by TheKnifeThrower:
Who cares if the G5 is a little slower than the AMD/Intel processors. It doesn't matter.

Well yes it does matter considering apple PC's are fucking expensive and they lie about how the G5 is the fastest processor.

Not at the time of release. Back then it was the fastest  

fucking progress.

In any case, I still like the Apple user experience better than Windoze or Linux. Expensive yes, but it's worth it IMHO.

[xyle_one]

Yes. Buying a g4 was the best computer investment i have made. I enjoy using it, and will never go back to windows. I dont care if a pc gets a few more frames per second, or can apply a photoshop filter 2 seconds faster.

And those tests are crap. Premiere 6 for osx crap. Which filters did they use for photoshop? I know this has been beaten into the ground, but dif filters function dif on dif platforms, it depends on how it is written and what proc its running under. I could grab 10 filters optimized for osx and smoke any pc. Does that prove anything?

Eh. it doesnt really matter actually. I still prefer a mac over a pc.

[hm_murdock]

the problem is that they poured too much beer on the Athlon!

damn it all, they shoulda poured RUM ON IT

see, I add hearty amounts of Captain Morgan's Spiced Rum. It's made in Puerto Rico by a pirate, and therefore is the best.

actually, it's pirates. that's the problem. it's pirates that make the Athlon FX so damn flakey! They sail around in the Caribbean and broadside clippers, then swing over on the rigging! JESUCRISTO!

Captain Jack Sparrow will steal everything you own and you'll like it.

oh, and Lt. Captain Floyd will shoot you with solar death beams and you'll fall down and yell "I'M ENJOYING THIS!"

[billy_gates]

you all know that moonshine vodka provides the biggest performance enhancements to CPU's