NASA publishes first 3rd party benches of Apple G5 machine vs. P4.

[Murr]

I'd be willing to admit that the G5 is currently the fastest computer, based off what I've read I'd say it is. The problem is that once you upgrade to comparable RAM (1 gig) and video card (9800 pro) you're at $3550. That is twice the price as my system:

P4c 2.8
P4P800 dx
1 gig XMS 3200
9800 pro
2 Raptors
DVD rom
DVD+- burner
Santa Cruz
Logitech z640 (no speakers selected on mac)
+ all other normal accessories

I'd venture to guess that the G5 isn't quite twice as fast. Plus we all know about the limited overclocking, upgrading, and games.

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: jbond04

Originally posted by: Eug
Some points about IBM:

1) They stated it would be introduced at 1.8 GHz, but it came out at 2 GHz right off the bat.
2) They stated it would come out in Q3, and indeed, shipping of complete Apple systems are scheduled for August supposedly. (People are getting ship dates of before Sept. 2.)
3) They are fabbing for AMD.
4) They will be going head to head with x86 in the blade server market with this chip. These chips are to be the cornerstore of part of IBM's lower-end Linux blade server market, along with Opterons and Xeons, etc. in existing lines. In fact, they said those blades will be at 1.8 - 2.5 GHz. It would be in IBM's best interest to keep those PPC 970 chips flowing - for themselves, not just for Apple.
5) They have publicly stated that the PPC 970 will hit 3 GHz within 12 months.
6) They have said that the PPC 970 will go 0.09 um fairly quickly (whatever that means).

I never said that IBM didn't have the manufacturing expertise to make the G5 scale well (IBM has one of the best teams out there, I think). But you're still listing things that Intel will have several months before Apple/IBM. Prescott appears ready to roll, which is .09um, and in 12 months, it will almost be Tejas time (H2 2004). My point isn't that the G5 is bad, because it's not, but it's not anything revolutionary, and it's not even the best. What I am saying is that for now, Intel still has the performance advantage, and will for the forseeable future. It's good to see the IBM is committed to the future of the G5, though.

but there is one thing that Intel doesn't have that Apple/IBM does; OS X. it wasn't the hardware that convinced me to buy a Mac, you know

 

[Insane3D]

Macs have their place. If I could afford one, I would love to get a dual G5 setup to play around with. All this arguing seems a bit pointless as no one ever seems to be convinced either way. Just my observation.


Also, I really like the case that the G5 comes in, very slick.

Ok, back to the arguing.

 

[GonzoDaGr8]

actually, the Apple upgrade market is booming. go look for powerlogix, sonnet, etc.

Sorry to say...But been there, done that. $599.95 to upgrade my sputtering G3/350 to a still paltry G4/1000 is a crock o' sh!t. And that is JUST a processor, nothing else!! That same amount would get one heck of a nice P4/ Athlon setup including mainboard and ram, Ready to drop in the good ol' ATX case and go. Upgrades for macs' is still way out of hand.

 

[NFS4]

but there is one thing that Intel doesn't have that Apple/IBM does; OS X. it wasn't the hardware that convinced me to buy a Mac, you know

Not to flame, but what is so flippin' special about OS X? I hear people raving about it all the time, but what's the big deal??

Granted, I'm a Windows freak and use Windows XP Professional at home and XP Pro and 2k Pro at work.

I've never had issues with XP Pro, it handles ALL of my software, games, utilities, peripherals including my PocketPC (which Macs don't support...BOOOOOOO). XP Pro is stable as heck very fast (granted, I'm using a 2.4C @ 3.06GHz w/1GB of PC3500 memory), and security updates are downloaded automatically for me so I really don't see that as being an issue.

So what's the big whoop about OS X?

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: NFS4

but there is one thing that Intel doesn't have that Apple/IBM does; OS X. it wasn't the hardware that convinced me to buy a Mac, you know

Not to flame, but what is so flippin' special about OS X? I hear people raving about it all the time, but what's the big deal??

Granted, I'm a Windows freak and use Windows XP Professional at home and XP Pro and 2k Pro at work.

I've never had issues with XP Pro, it handles ALL of my software, games, utilities, peripherals including my PocketPC (which Macs don't support...BOOOOOOO). XP Pro is stable as heck very fast (granted, I'm using a 2.4C @ 3.06GHz w/1GB of PC3500 memory), and security updates are downloaded automatically for me so I really don't see that as being an issue.

So what's the big whoop about OS X?

try using it. i used to disdan Apples, then i used one for a few days. OS X is incredibly better than Windows. you just have to use it for couple days. i've yet to meet someone who doesn't think that windows totally sucks after having used os x for a little while.

btw, i have an iPaq 3955, and it kinda sucked not being able to sync with my Mac. however, the MissingSync is coming out for PocketPC soon, and it is gonna rock. it will basically do everything that ActiveSync does, and more. like the ability to mount the PocketPC as a removeable drive. should be out in July. when that happens, i imagine that i will never touch my PC except for games.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: EdipisReks

Originally posted by: NFS4

but there is one thing that Intel doesn't have that Apple/IBM does; OS X. it wasn't the hardware that convinced me to buy a Mac, you know

Not to flame, but what is so flippin' special about OS X? I hear people raving about it all the time, but what's the big deal??

Granted, I'm a Windows freak and use Windows XP Professional at home and XP Pro and 2k Pro at work.

I've never had issues with XP Pro, it handles ALL of my software, games, utilities, peripherals including my PocketPC (which Macs don't support...BOOOOOOO). XP Pro is stable as heck very fast (granted, I'm using a 2.4C @ 3.06GHz w/1GB of PC3500 memory), and security updates are downloaded automatically for me so I really don't see that as being an issue.

So what's the big whoop about OS X?

try using it. i used to disdan Apples, then i used one for a few days. OS X is incredibly better than Windows. you just have to use it for couple days. i've yet to meet someone who doesn't think that windows totally sucks after having used os x for a little while.

Unless it runs every piece of software I have, all of my games, and all of my hardware, what's the point?

I mean, Ferrari's are nice, I've been in them. Porsche's are nice, I'd seen 115MPH in those. But it's not like I can bring myself and 4 friends along with me for the ride

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: GonzoDaGr8

actually, the Apple upgrade market is booming. go look for powerlogix, sonnet, etc.

Sorry to say...But been there, done that. $599.95 to upgrade my sputtering G3/350 to a still paltry G4/1000 is a crock o' sh!t. And that is JUST a processor, nothing else!! That same amount would get one heck of a nice P4/ Athlon setup including mainboard and ram, Ready to drop in the good ol' ATX case and go. Upgrades for macs' is still way out of hand.

powerlogix just lowered their prices. however, i don't think that looking at the G3 350 upgrades is fair for the entire CPU upgrade. afterall, nobody expects to be able to upgrade a P2 350 to a top of the line system. you could get a qucksilver motherboard, g4 1000 CPU and a PSU for (relatively speaking) fairly cheap if you don't want to get a new machine. it shouldn't be too hard to get those to fit in your current case.

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: EdipisReks

Originally posted by: NFS4

but there is one thing that Intel doesn't have that Apple/IBM does; OS X. it wasn't the hardware that convinced me to buy a Mac, you know

Not to flame, but what is so flippin' special about OS X? I hear people raving about it all the time, but what's the big deal??

Granted, I'm a Windows freak and use Windows XP Professional at home and XP Pro and 2k Pro at work.

I've never had issues with XP Pro, it handles ALL of my software, games, utilities, peripherals including my PocketPC (which Macs don't support...BOOOOOOO). XP Pro is stable as heck very fast (granted, I'm using a 2.4C @ 3.06GHz w/1GB of PC3500 memory), and security updates are downloaded automatically for me so I really don't see that as being an issue.

So what's the big whoop about OS X?

try using it. i used to disdan Apples, then i used one for a few days. OS X is incredibly better than Windows. you just have to use it for couple days. i've yet to meet someone who doesn't think that windows totally sucks after having used os x for a little while.

Unless it runs every piece of software I have, all of my games, and all of my hardware, what's the point?

I mean, Ferrari's are nice, I've been in them. Porsche's are nice, I'd seen 115MPH in those. But it's not like I can bring myself and 4 friends along with me for the ride

it will run everything but your games. and frankly, there hasn't been a PC game to really excite me in 3 years. since i do most of my gaming on consoles anymore, i really haven't missed it that much using my Mac. read my edit about the MissingSync, btw. once it comes out, Apple will be the platform for using a PPC with.

 

[jbond04]

What about 3ds Max and AutoCAD? OSX doesn't have those...and don't try to give me an alternative to those programs. Maya's crap for architectural visualization, and NOTHING can compete with AutoCAD. I'd have to agree with NFS4, I don't see what the big deal about OSX is. My friend has an Apple laptop, and the only thing outstanding that I saw was the severe lack of applications.

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: jbond04
What about 3ds Max and AutoCAD? OSX doesn't have those...and don't try to give me an alternative to those programs. Maya's crap for architectural visualization, and NOTHING can compete with AutoCAD. I'd have to agree with NFS4, I don't see what the big deal about OSX is. My friend has an Apple laptop, and the only thing outstanding that I saw was the severe lack of applications.

well, if you aren't willing to talk about alternatives, why bother even asking?

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: EdipisReks

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: EdipisReks

Originally posted by: NFS4

but there is one thing that Intel doesn't have that Apple/IBM does; OS X. it wasn't the hardware that convinced me to buy a Mac, you know

Not to flame, but what is so flippin' special about OS X? I hear people raving about it all the time, but what's the big deal??

Granted, I'm a Windows freak and use Windows XP Professional at home and XP Pro and 2k Pro at work.

I've never had issues with XP Pro, it handles ALL of my software, games, utilities, peripherals including my PocketPC (which Macs don't support...BOOOOOOO). XP Pro is stable as heck very fast (granted, I'm using a 2.4C @ 3.06GHz w/1GB of PC3500 memory), and security updates are downloaded automatically for me so I really don't see that as being an issue.

So what's the big whoop about OS X?

try using it. i used to disdan Apples, then i used one for a few days. OS X is incredibly better than Windows. you just have to use it for couple days. i've yet to meet someone who doesn't think that windows totally sucks after having used os x for a little while.

Unless it runs every piece of software I have, all of my games, and all of my hardware, what's the point?

I mean, Ferrari's are nice, I've been in them. Porsche's are nice, I'd seen 115MPH in those. But it's not like I can bring myself and 4 friends along with me for the ride

it will run everything but your games. and frankly, there hasn't been a PC game to really excite me in 3 years. since i do most of my gaming on consoles anymore, i really haven't missed it that much using my Mac.

I guess my point is, why bother with two different operating systems (one for software; one for games) when I have one that works perfectly and efficiently?

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that OS X is probably a fabulous operating system...but I have no urge or need to lay down an a$$load of money just to try it (hardware + software costs of converting to a totally different operating system + time learning something new + being locked into one hardware configuration until I shell out another $2,000 for a totally new system).

The cost of conversion just isn't worth it. I've used PC's since I was in 1st grade, Windows based machines since middle school. I deal with PC's everday at work (Windows 95, 98, 98 SE, NT, 2000, XP...mostly the latter two) and my campus is about 80% Windows, 15% Linux and 5% Mac.

I'm just not seeing it

 

[jbond04]

It was a rhetorical question. My point is that Windows has the two best architectural visualization programs in the world, and OSX doesn't. Granted, this is a niche market to most people, but I'm sure it's not the only niche that's without a Macintosh equal.

 

[Murr]

Would someone mind telling some specific reasons OSX is better? I'm not a PC fanboy or anything trying to argue, I always buy whats good for the price. But frankly, it sometimes seems that everyone who says Windows sucks is just a Linux or Mac user who's pissed off about MS's dominance.

I've had limited experience with Macs at school, and thats it.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Murr
Would someone mind telling some specific reasons OSX is better? I'm not a PC fanboy or anything trying to argue, I always buy whats good for the price. But frankly, it sometimes seems that everyone who says Windows sucks is just a Linux or Mac user who's pissed off about MS's dominance.

I've had limited experience with Macs at school, and thats it.

That's kinda what I'm trying to get at. Given my Wintel background, going to OS X really doesn't make sense unless I want to TOTALLY convert over to using Apple hardware...b/c I will NOT use both. It's either one or the other.

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: NFS4

b/c I will NOT use both. It's either one or the other.

why? that makes about as much sense as saying "i will use floss or a toothbrush, but not both". PC's and Mac's compliment each other, just as floss and tooth brushes do.

 

[sharkeeper]

Porsche's are nice, I'd seen 115MPH in those.

Whaaaat???! You haven't been broken in until you hit the rev limiter at 158 mph in 5th gear. 1997 993 911 Turbo, 95 North hour after rush hour!

why? that makes about as much sense as saying "i will use floss or a toothbrush, but not both". PC's and Mac's compliment each other, just as floss and tooth brushes do.

Windows XP Pro = Sonicare!

-DAK-

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: EdipisReks

Originally posted by: NFS4

b/c I will NOT use both. It's either one or the other.

why? that makes about as much sense as saying "i will use floss or a toothbrush, but not both". PC's and Mac's compliment each other, just as floss and tooth brushes do.

What is the LOGIC in me using both a PC and a Mac at home when the PC running WinXP is perfect? Why add a totally different machine AT ADDED COST TO ME for no other reason than to say "Wow, look at that?"

It'd be like me buying a Toyota Camry and then saying, "Hmmm...the Accord looks nice too and it handles a little bit better, maybe I'll buy one of those too and then use them both."

It makes no sense

 

[jbond04]

Originally posted by: EdipisReks

Originally posted by: NFS4

b/c I will NOT use both. It's either one or the other.

why? that makes about as much sense as saying "i will use floss or a toothbrush, but not both". PC's and Mac's compliment each other, just as floss and tooth brushes do.

Uh.... Interesting analogy, but I'll run with it. Why floss when the toothbrush does everything you need? Or, perhaps even a better job? It really isn't too complicated to figure out. If I like to use Windows, and it meets my needs, and it's faster than a Macintosh, why would I bother switching? Or why would I even bother to pay attention to the new G5 processor? Does it offer anything over Intel or AMD? If you're a Mac user or Mac fan, then I'm sure you must be astounded, but to me, the new G5 didn't rock my socks off. Now, if it were faster, and had more potential than the P4, then I might be interested, but right now, neither have been conclusively proven. That, plus Prescott is so damn attractive.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: shuttleteam

Porsche's are nice, I'd seen 115MPH in those.

Whaaaat???! You haven't been broken in until you hit the rev limiter at 158 mph in 5th gear. 1997 993 911 Turbo, 95 North hour after rush hour!

-DAK-

(1) I wasn't driving
(2) The interstate was crowded

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: Murr
Would someone mind telling some specific reasons OSX is better? I'm not a PC fanboy or anything trying to argue, I always buy whats good for the price. But frankly, it sometimes seems that everyone who says Windows sucks is just a Linux or Mac user who's pissed off about MS's dominance.

I've had limited experience with Macs at school, and thats it.

i'm not pissed of about MS's dominance. i've been using PC's for nearly 20 years. OS X has a better filing system, better TCP/IP implemntation, rarely crashes (i've gotten win2000 to crash 3 times this week), has better software integration, comes with much better default software, and looks prettier. OS X basically makes using a computer less of a chore. after building and maintaining tons of PC's over the years, digging around in the registry to fix somes stupid problem has lost its charm. and even if i wanted to dig around, i could do a much more thorough job of it by using the terminal. some of the differences take time to notice. however, after having this PowerBook for the last couple months, i feel that there is basically nothing that i can do on PC that i can't do better and more easily on my Mac. it just works.

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: jbond04

Originally posted by: EdipisReks

Originally posted by: NFS4

b/c I will NOT use both. It's either one or the other.

why? that makes about as much sense as saying "i will use floss or a toothbrush, but not both". PC's and Mac's compliment each other, just as floss and tooth brushes do.

Uh.... Interesting analogy, but I'll run with it. Why floss when the toothbrush does everything you need? Or, perhaps even a better job? It really isn't too complicated to figure out. If I like to use Windows, and it meets my needs, and it's faster than a Macintosh, why would I bother switching? Or why would I even bother to pay attention to the new G5 processor? Does it offer anything over Intel or AMD? If you're a Mac user or Mac fan, then I'm sure you must be astounded, but to me, the new G5 didn't rock my socks off. Now, if it were faster, and had more potential than the P4, then I might be interested, but right now, neither have been conclusively proven. That, plus Prescott is so damn attractive.

you must have bad teeth. toothbrushes don't do much of the things that floss does. obviously you guys are never gonna try a mac because you aren't openminded when it comes to computers. you feel like your current implementation does everything fine. which it might. i used to be like you, but then i let myself in to a new computer experience. i'm much happier after having done it. PC's still "meet my needs", but my Mac makes my general computer usage much more enjoyable. sometimes i use my PC, because it can do some things better than my Mac can, but i use OS X 95% of the time i use a computer.

 

[EdipisReks]

well, i'm off this thread now. Terminator 3 beckons

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: EdipisReks
well, i'm off this thread now. Terminator 3 beckons

Bah, tuck your tail between your legs and run. Yeah, go ahead and run!!!!!

 

[PowerMacG5]

Back on topic, and no flame present:

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: NFS4

Indeed, one might expect a dual G5 to "clean house" with a very memory bandwidth intensive app, since the G5 sports dual 1 GHz bus. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a single G5 2.0 beat a single 800 MHz P4 3.2 in these types of apps.

The system bus is at 1GHz, but what's the DDR memory bandwidth on the G5's?

The memory bandwidth per se is the same as the P4 (dual channel DDR400), but the connection of the CPU to system controller is via two independent 1 GHz busses for the dual 2.0, and one 1 GHz for the single 2.0 (which doesn't exist unless you rip out a CPU). In other words, for apps shuffling around a lot of data, the G5 should still be faster (at least in certain situations), despite having the same dual channel DDR400 memory bus. But as you've pointed out, in CPU-bound tasks, the P4 would win compared to a single G5.

If I remember correctly, the G5 has a 1 GHz bus between processors, but the bus that links it to memory is 800 MHz.