Why are there no comparisons between Apple G4/G5 vs AMD and Intel?

[BitByBit]

Macs are seldom compared to Athlon/Pentium platforms for the same reason the latter aren't compared to Itanium platforms.
Different architecture.
PowerPC and Itanium use RISC (Reduced Intruction Set Computing) architecture, where Athlons and Pentiums use CISC, or x86.
The RISC architecture is generally more efficient than CISC, especially from a power usage point of view, mainly because they are much simpler.

As for application-specific comparison between the three CPUs (Athlon/P4 vs G5), Intel and AMD are only able to compete through sheer muscle (Mac simply doesn't have the resources).
The performance gains associated with RISC are the reason Intel wanted to move its entire line away from x86.
I cannot help but postulate that had AMD/Intel moved to RISC, we would very likely be seeing much, much higher performing, not to mention cooler, CPUs.

 

[LTC8K6]

There have been comparisons and the Apples have always been embarrassed, both in performance and price/performance. This has not changed with the G5.

They were forced to stop calling the G5 the fastest desktop processor. Remember those ads with the person being blown out through the wall by the power of the G5? They didn't last long.

There are people who just like Apple and it's OS. They will buy them no matter what.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: zakee00
yeah i think the g4 would be more comparable to the amd XP, and the g5 to the A64. i dont know what your sources are CaiNaM, but apple posts quite a different story: http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/
if they were lying, wouldnt that be false-advertising?

certainly you aren't that naieve? companies do it all the time.. slant a test which is more favorable to one over the other, then make claims based on that.

"the dark side of benchmarking computers is that anyone can put together a scenario in which one computer is shown to dominate another -- aka selective benchmarking. only with well-written and equally optimized applications for differing platforms can one hope to come away with any meaningful results."

there's a reason we look for multiple, independent reviews

there is no doubt that apple makes some damn amazing products, you just cant really compare performance from platform to platform becase a Mac really is a whole experence. i know it sounds cheesy and retarded, but its true. if you are intrested in just messin around with one, heres a list of the retail stores. i wouldnt waste my time at compusa, they blow:http://www.apple.com/retail/.
you WILL be impressed, i dont care who you are.

i've worked with them, tho not on an extended basis. i wasn't overly impressed. go figure.. to each his own, i guess. but i'm also being objective; i've stated strong points for the mac and why some people might favor them as well.

"I also play WoW on it when I am not at home ( plays very well too )" Thats VERY nice to know, i used the same laptop to participate in the Open Beta before i bought my new 1337 gaming machine. the performance sucked big time in the beta, but im sure they have optamized it MUCH more in the final verson. now i am sure i can play WoW on my desktop, and wirelessly on my laptop
peace,
nick
any ?'s, comments, or concernes, PM me. lol i prolly sound like an apple rep or somethin

WoW is hardly taxing; it plays well (not overly so, but quite acceptable) on an athlonXP 1700+ with a GF4.

how does HL2 run on a mac? or far cry? umm.... oh.. wait, they don't run on mac...

or how about these impressive ut benchmarks on a DUAL 2.5Ghz G5?? most pc users would dump their pc's if they showed that kind of performance.

to be completely fair, benchmarks for productivity apps are certianly closer, but again in many cases it takes a dual cpu mac to keep up with a single cpu athlon/p4.

there are certainly reasons why one might favor a mac over a pc, but performance (especially gaming) certainly isn't one of them.

 

[ArneBjarne]

Originally posted by: BitByBit
Macs are seldom compared to Athlon/Pentium platforms for the same reason the latter aren't compared to Itanium platforms.
Different architecture.
PowerPC and Itanium use RISC (Reduced Intruction Set Computing) architecture, where Athlons and Pentiums use CISC, or x86.
The RISC architecture is generally more efficient than CISC, especially from a power usage point of view, mainly because they are much simpler.

As for application-specific comparison between the three CPUs (Athlon/P4 vs G5), Intel and AMD are only able to compete through sheer muscle (Mac simply doesn't have the resources).
The performance gains associated with RISC are the reason Intel wanted to move its entire line away from x86.
I cannot help but postulate that had AMD/Intel moved to RISC, we would very likely be seeing much, much higher performing, not to mention cooler, CPUs.

"The relevance of the term RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) dates back to when early x86 processors were known as CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computers). Then, the battle between Unix and x86 was known as RISC vs. CISC. But the distinction has grown outdated, because, since the Pentium, x86 processors are now actually RISC-based.

"The old RISC vs. CISC argument is really obsolete," says Glaskowsky. "All CISC processors today are RISC processors with translation hardware to provide compatibility with the the x86 instruction set." Intel's Itanium architecture is, in fact, based on a non-RISC approach: the VLIW (Very Long Instruction Word) design."


Link

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
a mac is clock for clock comparable to an amd64, perhaps a bit faster.

There's no way a G4 is, clock per clock, faster than a socket 939 Athlon 64. G5, maybe, but only on certain tasks. G4? No.

oops I missed that g4/g5 part.

 

[zakee00]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
certainly you aren't that naieve? companies do it all the time.. slant a test which is more favorable to one over the other, then make claims based on that.

"the dark side of benchmarking computers is that anyone can put together a scenario in which one computer is shown to dominate another -- aka selective benchmarking. only with well-written and equally optimized applications for differing platforms can one hope to come away with any meaningful results."

there's a reason we look for multiple, independent reviews

WoW is hardly taxing; it plays well (not overly so, but quite acceptable) on an athlonXP 1700+ with a GF4.

how does HL2 run on a mac? or far cry? umm.... oh.. wait, they don't run on mac...

ok
1. i was just asking you where you got your data, not arguing.
2. i know WoW isnt very intensive, i was more talking to myself. im glad that i woull be able to enjoy it on my Powerbook w/ wireless internet. also, play it at friend's houses.
3. i never said macs are good at gaming, lol they blow. notice my sig, i wouldnt have JUST a mac, or JUST a windows...i think its good to have both.

 

[zakee00]

Originally posted by: Yossairian

Originally posted by: zakee00
"I also play WoW on it when I am not at home ( plays very well too )" Thats VERY nice to know, i used the same laptop to participate in the Open Beta before i bought my new 1337 gaming machine. the performance sucked big time in the beta, but im sure they have optamized it MUCH more in the final verson. now i am sure i can play WoW on my desktop, and wirelessly on my laptop

I have seen your sig before, we almost have the same gear, except the 3200+ and PDP memory. You must have good taste

WoW is not all that bad on the mac, I was surprised. Of course going from your game rig will be a major downgrade, but it is playable. My A64 was down wating on a waterblock when I finally found the game. Its been so long since I have bought a Blizzard game, I forgot they usually support both platforms with the same copy ( Bless them for that ). Anyway, loaded it up + had my guy up to level 6 before I got my A64 up and running.

Happy gaming,

haha *highfive*. i love my setup, just wish i had a new monitor that could play 16x12 at >60Hz lol

 

[Ecgtheow]

It looks like the Mac mini is using the MPC7447A, which is constrained by the 167 MHz bus. The e600 (or an e500 variant) parts would fix that, but I'm not sure of the timetable for those.