Mac Vs. PC - The TRUE Better of the two?

[Ornery]

G5 doesn't measure up to Apple's claims in our Logic tests

• The result? Believe it or not, this 1.4 GHz P4 -- a machine running at less than HALF the speed of the Dell machine Apple soundly whupped in its tests -- beats BOTH the single-processor G5s! It supports at least 60 tracks. (In its test, Apple says a 3 GHz Dell manages only 35 tracks, but was using Cubase.)

Are Apple's G5 Benchmark Results False?

• "Apple's test results are invalidated by severely lopsided testing conditions," InfoWorld's Tom Yager writes in his Web log. "Among them, Apple used a prototype G5 running its special GNU compiler and an unreleased version of OS X. The Dells used shipping hardware, vanilla GNU compilers and Red Hat 9. None of this would be a problem if Apple and Veritest didn't claim the tests were objective. An apples-to-apples test, so to speak, would require that Dell, like Apple, be allowed to tune its systems and software for best-case performance. Dell's published results on the SPEC site--regarded as the definitive repository for SPEC results--are best-case. They're far better than the results cited by Veritest in the Apple report."
  
  Sure enough, in each of the benchmarks in which Apple claims victory over the Pentium 4- or Xeon-based systems, various Pentium 4, Xeon, and even AMD Athlon XP systems actually beat the G5 routinely when the tested systems have been properly configured, and don't have features turned off.

G5 Benchmark Controversy Continues....

• And, in our own tests, a Pentium 4 running at a mere 1.4 GHz beat Apple's 1.6GHz and 1.8 GHz single-CPU G5 configurations in multitrack audio playback and effects processing.
  
  We compared Apple's published G5 Performance test results of the Logic audio program to a PC running an identical number of channels, filters and effects in the most recent version of Logic running on a PC. (The most recent version of Logic was tested on the G5.) In our test, a Pentium 4 running at a mere 1.4 GHz -- less than half the speed of the PC Apple tested! -- beat any of Apple's single-CPU G5 configurations, all of which were running at higher clock speeds. These results certainly cast doubt upon Apple's claim to "the world's fastest personal computer." Read more....

The answer to your question should be obvious.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: Ornery
big long post that I will skip for the sake of space...

The first and third links you posted are to the same article. Not only that, but they seem to indicate that this person benchmarked his P4 laptop against a G5 that he doesn't have. He says the P4 beat the hypothetical G5 quite handily.

The second link you posted goes to a site called "wininformant" with a tagline of "windows news and information". Does that sound like a less biased source than Apple to you?

You've got one article with benchmarks comparing a P4 to nothing, and one Windows site that says Macs are slow. What exactly about that is supposed to be "obvious"?

 

[Ornery]

On its website, in the PDF on G5 performance, Apple cites the following figures:

1.6 GHz G5 = 52 tracks
1.8 GHz G5 = 59 tracks

He bested those figures. Did you bother to read it? He also challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Be my guest.

Apple sites won't point out how the tests were skewed, and Apple hasn't denied it.

 

[CaptainBill]

Originally posted by: notfred
I just have to say that people have been arguing over this topic for well over a decade now. Do you really expect to clear everything up in one thread on ATOT?

Yes



In all seriousness though, I was just interested in hearing what people had to say. I'm not looking to buy, I love pc's, and I just like being able to build one up from scratch and tweak it like I want it. I just wanted to see the arguments people had, and see if they are rational ,and not have people fly of the handle and start a flame war (however, I know asking such a broad question is just inviting flaming). I'm not up to date on Macintosh technology, so it would be nice to hear from those who are or who have experience.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: Ornery

On its website, in the PDF on G5 performance, Apple cites the following figures:

1.6 GHz G5 = 52 tracks
1.8 GHz G5 = 59 tracks

He bested those figures. Did you bother to read it? He also challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Be my guest.

Apple sites won't point out how the tests were skewed, and Apple hasn't denied it.

He beat 59 tracks. That would actually have some merit if he used the same tracks that Apple did. He has no idea what Apple used, which is why the "benchmark" is junk. The challenge to prove otherwise is also BS. He didn't say what tracks he used, so no one one can duplicate his test. Also, the G5 hasn't shipped yet, so no one has one to compare against.

I don't know if Apple's benchmarks are skewed. No one other than Apple does. And no one will until Apple ships the G5s next month. One thing that gives Apple more credit than anyone else posting these "benchmarks" is that Apple actually has a G5 to test on. None of these other people do. What you're saying is "Apple has definitely screwed with their benchmark results - look at all the proof that these people who have never, seen, used, or let alone benchmarked a G5 have pulled out of their asses"

 

[mpitts]

For those who argue that Apple skewed G5 benchmarks, remember this:

Apple did not do the testing. VeriTest, a third party vendor, handled and verified it's results.

From Slashdot's interview with Greg Joswiak (Apple Hardware VP):

He said Veritest used gcc for both platforms, instead of Intel's compiler, simply because the benchmarks measure two things at the same time: compiler, and hardware. To test the hardware alone, you must normalize the compiler out of the equation -- using the same version and similar settings -- and, if anything, Joswiak said, gcc has been available on the Intel platform for a lot longer and is more optimized for Intel than for PowerPC.

He conceded readily that the Dell numbers would be higher with the Intel compiler, but that the Apple numbers could be higher with a different compiler too.

Basically what VeriTest did was to try and even the playing field. There were no platorm or OS optimizations. They were doing RAW crunching on the same platform (GCC).


The bottom line is this: Most people here will go out of their way to disparage Apple and their products at any given opportunity. And most really don't know why they do it, but they do.

 

[Ornery]

Apple accused of cheating over G5 benchmarks

• VeriTest recorded SPECint base score of 800, 889 and 836 for the G5, 8300 and 650, respectively. The equivalent SPECfp base scores were 840, 693 and 646. So the G5 out-performs the other machines, yes?
  
  Well, so says Apple, but a closer look at VeriTest's documentation, freely available from its web site, suggests otherwise.
  
  Certainly SPEC figures published on the SPEC web site do, as Register readers noted, along with readers at a number of web sites today. The corresponding SPECint and SPECfp base Dell-provided results for the 650 are 1089 and 1053. Equivalent figures for the Dimension 8300 are not available.
  
  That puts Apple's figures in a new light. On one hand we have figures that suggest the 2GHz G5 outperforms the 3GHz Xeon in certain benchtests, and on the other we have numbers that show the exact opposite. What gives?
  
  Firstly, Dell's own figures were calculated using different compilers and host operating system: Windows XP Pro, Intel's own C++ and Fortran compilers, and the MicroQuill SmartHeap Library 6.01. Secondly, the compiler used by VeriTest, GCC, is said to generate code that less well optimised for x86. Thirdly, VeriTest seems to have adjusted the test hardware to favour the G5. Again, all the details are there in the documentation.
  
  VeriTest admits it used an Apple-supplied tool to adjust the G5 processor's registers "to enable Memory Read Bypass" and "to enable the maximum of eight hardware prefetch streams and disable software-based pre-fetching". The company also installed a "high performance, single-threaded malloc library... geared for speed rather than memory efficiency". That, says VeriTest, "makes it unsuitable for many uses".
  
  We'd guess these are hardly standard system configurations...

Skewed, clearly skewed!

spl's soapbox -- apple powermac G5

• ...I challenge Apple to show the world what they are made of. Go on, show the world that you are a company of integrity. Remove the claim "The Power Mac G5 is the world's fastest personal computer". Replace it with something more accurate, for example something like, "The Power Mac G5 is one of the world's fastest personal computers." That is still an impressive statement. You should be PROUD that you have ONE of the world's fastest personal computers. There is no need to deliberately mislead people.
  
  Everyone makes mistakes, I know I've made plenty. People will quickly forgive you for this mistake if you correct it. Show the world how much you respect your customers by amending your claim to "The Power Mac G5 is one of the world's fastest personal computers."
  
  On the other hand, if you continue to claim that the G5 is "THE world's fastest personal computer", then the message you are sending to the world is that honesty and accuracy in marketing is unimportant to you, and you couldn't care less about your customers, provided that they keep spending money on your products.

 

[LAUST]

I'm a mainstream kinda guy and I like my PC's under $2000.. I'll take a P4

 

[Miramonti]

Macs are better, just not as fast and cheap and useful.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: mpitts
For those who argue that Apple skewed G5 benchmarks, remember this:

Apple did not do the testing. VeriTest, a third party vendor, handled and verified it's results.

From Slashdot's interview with Greg Joswiak (Apple Hardware VP):

He said Veritest used gcc for both platforms, instead of Intel's compiler, simply because the benchmarks measure two things at the same time: compiler, and hardware. To test the hardware alone, you must normalize the compiler out of the equation -- using the same version and similar settings -- and, if anything, Joswiak said, gcc has been available on the Intel platform for a lot longer and is more optimized for Intel than for PowerPC.

He conceded readily that the Dell numbers would be higher with the Intel compiler, but that the Apple numbers could be higher with a different compiler too.

Basically what VeriTest did was to try and even the playing field. There were no platorm or OS optimizations. They were doing RAW crunching on the same platform (GCC).

I understand they were trying to isolate the hardware in their testing but that's pretty much impossible using cpus based on completely different architectures. There exists no compiler that will perform identically on x86 and the Apple platforms. Seems to be the only useful apples-to-apples test Veritest could have done would be to get the best-performing compiler for each platform and see which one does better. So if the Dell machines do best using an Intel Compiler use it for the Dell machines. Similarly, use the best-performing compiler on the G5. That way users can get an idea of how each does in the real world, and which is better using the best-case scenario for each system.

Also, using a 3rd party test house most certainly does not mean you will be getting unbiased results. Veritest was obviously on Apple's payroll to do the testing - can you really expect objectivity from that?

I'm not a Mac hater...I think OSX may be the best consumer OS on the planet. But it's annoying hearing Apple claim time and time again superior hardware when the real-world results don't agree.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: mpitts
I can comment on the video editing aspect of Macs.

I just recently bought a Sony MiniDV camcorder. I recorded some videos then plugged it into my G4 tower. The next thing I knew, iMovie opened and was ready to import the clips. I imported them with NO problems.

After they were imported, I decided I wanted to export the clips to play on one of my PCs. I went to Export and found that iMovie will export to just about any format you want it to, including AVI, MPG, MOV, etc etc etc. You can also customize the quality.

All in all, the experience could not have gone any better.

The same could be said for me and my paltry little 500mhz P3 with Pinnacle 7.
Opened right up, renders to all formats , The only thing I don't have (yet) is the DVD burner.
The best thing was not getting reamed by the "company store" when I went to add more RAM and another HD.
< I call it a draw. BTW, I was using my Pinnacle a full year before FCP was even out.
BTW, after getting familar with Pinnacle, I went right through FCP with very little learning curve.

 

[Kadarin]

Bah.. I just like the look/feel/usability of OSX over Windows, and dislike OSX's lack of, er, "snappiness" on my 800Mhz iMac G4. It'll likely be a couple of years, however, before I upgrade, if even then. In the meantime, both my iMac and my Athlon XP 1800+ machine are serving me well.

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: mpitts
I can comment on the video editing aspect of Macs.

I just recently bought a Sony MiniDV camcorder. I recorded some videos then plugged it into my G4 tower. The next thing I knew, iMovie opened and was ready to import the clips. I imported them with NO problems.

After they were imported, I decided I wanted to export the clips to play on one of my PCs. I went to Export and found that iMovie will export to just about any format you want it to, including AVI, MPG, MOV, etc etc etc. You can also customize the quality.

All in all, the experience could not have gone any better.

The same could be said for me and my paltry little 500mhz P3 with Pinnacle 7.
Opened right up, renders to all formats , The only thing I don't have (yet) is the DVD burner.
The best thing was not getting reamed by the "company store" when I went to add more RAM and another HD.
< I call it a draw. BTW, I was using my Pinnacle a full year before FCP was even out.
BTW, after getting familar with Pinnacle, I went right through FCP with very little learning curve.

That is good to hear. I have a P4 PC that I wouldn't mind hooking the MiniDV camera to as well.

I was just taken aback by how quickly and easily everything took place.

 

[Siddhartha]

Did I miss someone saying " I just popped some popcorn and I've pulled up my recliner"?

 

[Zim Hosein]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Did I miss someone saying " I just popped some popcorn and I've pulled up my recliner"?

Yes Dr Smooth & we have :beer: as well

<-- Passes a :beer: to Dr Smooth

 

[ViRGE]

I'm a Mac fan and all, but even I'm not dumb enough to commit suicide in a thread like this.

 

[ViRGE]

Edit: damn DP

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: DrumminBoy
are there any benchmarks that have been released by some other source besides apple?

You mean accurate and truthful benchmarks?

 

[Shawn]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Did I miss someone saying " I just popped some popcorn and I've pulled up my recliner"?

same here.