• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Parts of this thread are moronic beyond belief (both sides)

Why OSX is pretty cool.

I can run Apple's apps, just about every single major open source app. In the near future it looks like we will be able to run KDE apps natively (without porting).

The fact I next to never have to worry about
Viruses
Ad/Spy crap

What I don't like about Mac...
1. I can't always play every game I like (though I can play some...)
2. one button mice...though thankfully I haven't found a usb 2+button mouse that wouldn't work yet (even MS's own work fine)
3. Its nice to get major OS releases every year and so forth but Apple really needs to start doing Upgade releases...

What I like about Windows/Intel.
The fact I can play Ragnarok (www.ragnarokonline.com)
....give me a minute I'll have to think about this.....
Oh yeah the fact that desktops are cheaper...but its annoying that you have to be really careful since cheap != quality/reliable
The fact that there is more competition in the chip market/video card market so at least those are causing nice improvements...

What I don't like about Windows
1. The fact that Microsoft is as innovative as a Bully. (Gimme your milkmoney(idea) or I'll pound you.
2. The fact there is no real competition yet...Imagine where we could be today if MS actually had to worry about the Windows market.
3. Windows is not secure, confusing (some of the things that it'll do even confound me to "WTF" ) and quite frankly crude.
4. DRM, its coming and its gonna suck more and more...
**Apple's doing it too HOWEVER at LEAST they have a record for doing simple easily rounded DRM...

What I don't like about there discussions
Everyone is an expert and everyone is ALWAYS flawed somewhere in there arguments
I don't even think one post here is 100% bible truth...all of it comes down to "Well from a certain point of view" even when you base yourself on facts people tend to add their own spin. (My post is no exception)
 
Originally posted by: Regs
EdipisReks, I think I've fallen in love with you.
😀
Click to expand...

😱

[edit: just in case there is confusion, i'm a straight male. i just like redheads, so i chose that icon. i'm not the uber geek dream girl you may be looking for 😉]
 
How much faster is a Prescott 3.4 GHz supposed to be than a P4 3.4C anyway? Is Prescott still expected to debut at 3.4?
Click to expand...
OK. Moot point as it seems everybody is saying a P4 3.4 won't come out anyway.

OK, Eug's uneducated predictions (wild guesses):

Q4 2003: 3.4 GHz Pentium 5 Prescott, running on average at about 10% faster than a hypothetical 3.4C GHz P4, because of the increased cache size).
Q1 2004: 3.6 GHz Pentium 5. 800 MHz bus.

Q1 2004: 2.5 GHz G5 PPC 970 0.13 um. 1.25 GHz bus.

Thus, for CPU-bound work, a G5 in 2004 Q1 will be about 85% as fast as a Pentium 5 about the same time. For bus-limited stuff, the G5 may hold the advantage. Things will equal out somewhat when Prescott finally goes to 1066 GHz. It's possible the P5 will have an advantage with memory speed too, if the G5 doesn't match the memory speed increase.

Sounds a bit like the situation now.

So when is the Prescott-Xeon supposed to hit a 800 MHz bus?
 
All this aside, can you explain the reasoning for referring the the P4 as PIV all the time? Its not even easier to type... and why not GV for the G5? Perhaps IBM should rename the PPC 970 to PPCCMLXX, and hope nothing gets lost in the conversion...
 
So would someone explain to me what a pIV is. Is it anythign liek intel's p4. I know you guys can not be saying pIV when you mean p4. You are all waaaaaay to smart. So smart that I don't htink i need to remind you that there is no pIV. There is a pI pII and pIII but no pIV, they changed the name to p4. Maybe your research needs some tuning.


sorry to point out the obvious.
 
Add me to the list of AT people whose home systems consist of:
- PC for games (ok, and some messing around with DirectX SDK too - I program for Xbox/PS2 at work)
- Mac for everything else

I would like Apple to stay in business so I can buy a new mac every 4-5 years (getting close to time for a new one now). Despite the seasonal doomsaying it looks like Apple is in no danger of going away anytime soon. Beyond that, I could care less what other people choose to do with their computing decisions. Generally, unless I'm asked directly for computer purchase advice from somebody open minded about platforms, I don't discuss my opinions on the platforms' differences. If what you're using works for you and you're happy with it, then who am I to mess with a good thing?

Although the G5 towers are very attractive to me, I plan to hold out until they migrate the G5 into the powerbook line. Once you've gotten used to the flexibility and mobility of a powerbook it's hard to go back to towers.
 
Nit picking aside, the performance of Macs is finally at the same level as PCs.

Unfortunately, it's still a Mac. I started on a Mac. I worked on a Mac when I worked for an advertising agency several years ago. There's a reason I like PCs. I hate Mac operating systems.

And while $3000 is a pretty decent price for the performance of a dual G5, you have to spend $3000 to get anything decent. You can get a PC for $1000 that's the same performance as the $2000 G5. The pricing on the G5 "entry level" is way too high.
 
We're entering a Macintosh Renaissance the likes of which hasn't been seen for more than a decade.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I heard this before, when Apple announced OSX and "Pentium killer" G4. Of course, since then, Apple market share slipped from 2.5% to 2%, iLube..Cube and iLame proved to be a failure, and Apple had quite a few embarrasing quarter, with 500 Million loss in one.

Leon
 
I hate Mac operating systems.
Click to expand...
I betcha you weren't using OS X. On the Apple side, I went straight from AppleDOS to OS X. I hated System 7, OS 8, & OS 9. They sucked and were as unstable as Win95/98, with older features. OS X is a whole different world. It's a derative of NeXT OS, which in itself is a form of BSD Unix.
 
Speaking of the NeXT box, I always loved the site on the web that shows how their cases were made of Magnesium, and once you got them burning, woo hoo, did they ever burn...

Oh, and they should ban Apple vs anything threads in this forum, because they always turn ugly...

 
PS... Windows should detect macs operating on the network w/ them and kill them. Then your powerbook would be annihilated by your realcomputer.
Click to expand...

Mabye Windows should work on just being ABLE to detect a mac on a network for now.
 
Originally posted by: Eug
I hate Mac operating systems.
Click to expand...
I betcha you weren't using OS X. On the Apple side, I went straight from AppleDOS to OS X. I hated System 7, OS 8, & OS 9. They sucked and were as unstable as Win95/98, with older features. OS X is a whole different world. It's a derative of NeXT OS, which in itself is a form of BSD Unix.
Click to expand...

Originally it was a Mac SE, complete with 9" B/W monitor and dual double density floppy drives. I even had a 40 MB external Mirror hard drive for it! It was great back in the day, but that was before I knew anything about computers.

I bought a 486, and have been a PC guy since. I used a Mac Performa with OS PieceOfCrap for a year while at the ad agency, and the Quadras weren't any better.

If OS X is a good OS, congratulations Apple. I still won't touch it. As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft has had a stable OS for years and it also has tons of software for it that I want. iTunes? I'm not about to buy a $3000 MP3 jukebox. Come back in 5 or 10 years when Mac has a real advantage to it rather than "It's not Microsoft". Apple is finally catching up (not surpassing, catching up) and we're all supposed to wet ourselves with excitement?
 
It really comes down to what you use your computer for.

I use my PC as a HTPC and there's nothing for Apple that can even compare.

So no matter how fast the G5 is, if it doesn't have the apps needed then its a mute point.

Same could be said if you want itunes or final cut pro, etc.
 
I love how whenever Apple proccessors are benched against x86 processors it seem that their flagship get put against a the current midlevel x86 cpus? Why a 2.66ghz? why not a 3+ p4 on 800fsb? And furthermore - no Dual opteron???

it seems to happen time and time again....

dew.
 
Come back in 5 or 10 years when Mac has a real advantage to it rather than "It's not Microsoft". Apple is finally catching up (not surpassing, catching up) and we're all supposed to wet ourselves with excitement?
Click to expand...
Who said "Because it's not Microsoft"? I use Windows every day, and even on my Mac, some of the most important programs I use are by Microsoft.

As for surpassing vs. catching up. I think Apple has caught up with x86 in terms of the hardware, and has surpassed Microsoft in terms of a desktop OS. But that's just me.

Why a 2.66ghz? why not a 3+ p4 on 800fsb? And furthermore - no Dual opteron???
Click to expand...
Like I said, ask NASA, not Apple, because NASA did the testing. I figure they just used what they had lying around (besides the hard core AIX boxes or whatever). Apple did their own bakeoffs against dual Xeon 3.06 GHz machines (but vendor bakeoffs are always suspect).
 
Originally posted by: EdipisReks
Originally posted by: GL
This is much better than I had anticipated. Once a G5-aware compiler comes out, it could very well be neck-to-neck with a 3.2 GHz P4. And let's not forget there's another CPU there in that G5 system...The dual G5 system scored 498 MFLOPS to the single P4's 255 in the scalar benchmark. That's pretty damn impressive. I'm actually more impressed now, than I was when Apple did the WWDC bakeoff.
Click to expand...

wow, somebody has a clue. must be the end of the world.
Click to expand...

Once a G5 compiler is released...blah blah blah...

Why talking about what will happen in the future? Is the present Apple hardware/software a disappointment or something? 😉

 
Originally posted by: EdipisReks
Originally posted by: Regs
EdipisReks, I think I've fallen in love with you.
😀
Click to expand...

😱

[edit: just in case there is confusion, i'm a straight male. i just like redheads, so i chose that icon. i'm not the uber geek dream girl you may be looking for 😉]
Click to expand...


Doh! *Regs goes to do the crying game in the bath tub with a shite load of soap
 
Originally posted by: Regs
Originally posted by: EdipisReks
Originally posted by: Regs
EdipisReks, I think I've fallen in love with you.
😀
Click to expand...

😱

[edit: just in case there is confusion, i'm a straight male. i just like redheads, so i chose that icon. i'm not the uber geek dream girl you may be looking for 😉]
Click to expand...


Doh! *Regs goes to do the crying game in the bath tub with a shite load of soap
Click to expand...

lol.
 
Bottom line, both philosophies of construction have their advantages. Apple has compatability due to restraints on production, IBM is more open ended. Personally, I really hope Apple blows IBM out of the water. That'd force IBM to come up with new solutions. Heck, AMD just isn't powerful enough to keep Intel honest. Remember before AMDs were popular? Intel would sit on technologies, profitting as amuch as they could before introducing updates. Computers changed so much it really was most cost effective to simply buy a new premade system rather than build your own. At least that's how I saw it. I started on the apple, their OS was, well, not very open ended. I'd still prefer to program on a PC, but that's probably personal comfort. But current state of the art, for the same performance Intel is much cheaper than Apple. For me that's enough. I don't need the fastest, I just want cost effectiveness at the amount I want to spend. Good luck all you Apple Fanboys/girls/gender neutrals 😉
 
Bottom line, both philosophies of construction have their advantages. Apple has compatability due to restraints on production, IBM is more open ended. Personally, I really hope Apple blows IBM out of the water.
Click to expand...
Apple is running IBM CPUs. The so-called G5 is an IBM PPC 970.
 
Heck, AMD just isn't powerful enough to keep Intel honest.
Click to expand...
Where the heck do you think we'd be if AMD wasn't as powerful as they are? Intel may have a leg up on current Athlons, But don't think for a second that they aren't looking over thier backs. You can thank AMD for chasing/leading Intel up to the 3.0-3.2 GHZ that we have today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top