I just think it's funny that all the technologies that people have been looking for in PCs:
Next generation PCI bus PCI-X at 133 vs pci 33
64 bit proccessors
dual proccessors
128bit memory bus.
dual proccessor 64 bit bus.
next generation firewire/USB
SATA drive and controller.
Optical audio (still haven't figured that one out completely)
fast DVD burner.
Up to 8 gig memory
1ghz bus, 800mhz ddr memory.
It reads like a wish list for the next generation PC.
And Apple beat everyone to the punch. In almost every respect the top of the line G5 outclasses the current crop of PCs and have a fast proccesor to boot.
If AMD came out with these spec's on a new machine with a 4Ghz CPU people would be freaking out, saying how screwed Intel is going to be now that AMD was able to pull this it's butt, with a practicly overnight suprise.
Hells bells, but it was APPLE who did it not AMD or Intel. And for some reason people can't fit that fact into their universe.
They say at 3000 dollars who is going to buy that? That's outragious! Of course they say that because it's a knee jerk reaction, because Apples have always been overpriced. But if you pick it's closest rival: The dual Xeon 3.06ghz Dell workstation with all the options that make it equivilent to the Apple you have a 3500-4000 dollar computer. And the closest desktop dell offers with the 3.2ghz cpu is between 2800-2950 dollars, and the Apple still outclasses it in most respects.
Of course Apple HAD to cheat at the benchmarks, they used GCC compiler, but they should of made apple use the GCC and the Intel should of used the Icc compiler for the tests, THat's fair. Then they compare results from a test with a completely different test and use a different compiler in a part of the test then Apple picked that is only able to utilize one proccessor at a time. HELL THEN APPLE MUST BE CHEATING.... nope it's just people looking for attention and grasping at straws to prop up their failing universal veiwpoints.
The G5 is designed to be used in tandem, using tests that pretty much disable the second cpu is crippling the system and not realistic. When you use the dual proccessor G5 you will be using both proccessors and the OS and the hardware is designed to handle this well. Plus using gcc vs icc is a falacy, it's a well known fact that Icc is faster then Gcc. So how about this benchmark:
quake fps performance*:
Intel 3ghz proccessor with ATI 9700 pro
################################## 370fps
Drag's AMD 1700+ with overclocked geforce2 gts-v
#####################################################563fps
*(intel tests performed with quake3 at 1024x768 32bit color, AMD tests with quake2 at 680x480 16bit color in a small room)
Well they both test fps don't they? Are they not both are entertaining first person shooters developed by ID? Aren't they both valid tests of hardware? Well so are Spec with Icc and Gcc, but it doesn't mean that it is valid to compare one machine running Gcc and Intel running Icc, just like you can't compare one machine running quake2 and another running quake3.
At least in Redhat you are using Gcc in it's native element on the most well-known platform used by the creators of Gcc vs another Unix-like OS running Gcc.
No I am not a Mac fan, and no I don't have anything against Intel or AMD, I could care less. Do I think that OS X is better then Windows? Hell ya I do, but I prefer linux on x86 over both of then. But then again using Linux I have a actual CHOICE on which platform I can use my favorite OS on. And so far it APPEARS that Apples G5 lines have the best combination of quality of hardware and performance aviable.
So there is a chance in a year or so that I will be using my AMD for a television control box (tivo-like) and my new desktop may be a PowerMac.
Are you a lamer for using Intel, NO. How about AMD? NO. Are you robot, lazy, or ignorant or un-1337 for using windows? NO. Are you cheap for not wanting to spend 3000 dollars for MAC? Hell NO, but your not going to get a high-end maxed out Dell either.
Does the AMD Opteron offer a more power computer cpu and is that why Apple didn't include it in it's comparision, (plus it was 64 bit before Apple's cpus)? Yes, probably in most aspects, but the Opteron is designed for a different class of computers. You could then say the Power4 could rape the Opteron in terms of performance and then you can say a Cray supercomputer can kicks any IBM unix server's butt, But then you can say that the Earth Simulator in Japan will eat almost all the Cray supercomputers combined for a snack. The defining word here is "desktop".
Although I bet the AMD64 is going to rock, though. It better, I've always used AMD's because of there high power to dollar ratio so I will probably use that if the trend holds true in the future.
Intel still has the best combination of price and performance for the serious gamer, there is no doubt about that. The AMD64 is going to be nice, and I hope they don't rush it because of the Mac and goof like Intel did with it's Itanium line of proccesors.
Is apple twisting the results a bit, tweaking here and there and showing selective tests only for advertisements? Ya probably, although not to much. Apple and Veritest was willing to disclose all the details on their setup (at least for the spec tests) So I am willing to bet that dual Xeons actually do have a slight performance advantage compared to dual G5's, but I think that Pentium4 3 and 3.2 are still outclassed in 60-75 of the cases. It's just a switch around from what was true in the past before the Pentium was able to acheive outragious cpu speeds. The Pentium chips outclassed the PowerPC's usually 60-75 percent of the time to their comparatively priced cousins. But that's only at DUAL g5's vs ONE intel.
Facebook
Twitter