Apple is comparing their new 64bit machine against a 32bit machine.
They aint got the balls to show us the benchmarks against the Opteron or
Itanium.
Nor do they have the balls to demonstrate the 64bit version of Unreal
Tournament 2003.
In the past they showed their G4 with 2MB cache running Photoshop compared
to
a P4 with 256KB or 512KB cache. They didnt dare go up against an
Intel machine with 2MB cache.
It is funny how no Apple fan site benchmark in past years included Unreal
Tournament
which is known to be CPU bound.
"draino" <draino@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EF9612A.2010907@no-spam
: Que??
He just said that Apple are full of shit.
loo wrote:
> Apple is comparing their new 64bit machine against a 32bit machine.
> They aint got the balls to show us the benchmarks against the Opteron or
> Itanium.
> Nor do they have the balls to demonstrate the 64bit version of Unreal
> Tournament 2003.
>
> In the past they showed their G4 with 2MB cache running Photoshop compared
> to
> a P4 with 256KB or 512KB cache. They didnt dare go up against an
> Intel machine with 2MB cache.
>
> It is funny how no Apple fan site benchmark in past years included Unreal
> Tournament
> which is known to be CPU bound.
>
>
*Apple runs normal OS software, popper stuff,stuff that dosent send you
senile when venturing onto networks and visiting sites such as
www.gnu-darwin.org.
Aahh but software dosn't mean shit as computers run perfectly fine
without an OS right?
Games are for kids,game benchmarks are for 16 year olds reading PC
magazine that beleive there is an issue and game programming Men
In article <SLgKa.1143$p8.43699@no-spam>,
"Gareth Church" <gechurch@no-spam> wrote:
> It gets worse. They compare their new machines againgst a P4 - but
> disable SSE2, and a dual xeon machine - but they disable
> hyperthreading.
Funny, as I gather, they also disabled the equivalent Altivec; and
while hyperthreading may make for better overall performance, it
doesn't necessarily help benchmarks. Aren't you only supposed
to cripple the other guy?
--
David J Richardson -- davidj@no-spam
http://davidj.richardson.name/ -- Dr Who articles/interviews/reviews
http://www.boomerang.org.au/ -- Boomerang Association of Australia
> Personally, though, I don't really care about speed. For a long time it
> didn't matter how much you spent on a computer, you were always waiting
for
> it. These days (since around 1Ghz machines) it doesn't matter how little
you
> pay, the machine will spend most of its time waiting for you. I'm normally
a
> person that likes to buy new equipment pretty regularly, but I've had my
> 1600+ for about 2 years now and just don't have an excuse to upgrade.
I completely agree. Once you get above 1 GHz it's pretty much academic.
Rendering video or Hi res graphics is the only reason the average user would
need anything faster.
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:48:37 +1000
'but they disable hyperthreading'
That's because it was faster without it.
Al
"loo" <loo@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bdbhjd$19c2$1@no-spam
> Apple is comparing their new 64bit machine against a 32bit machine.
> They aint got the balls to show us the benchmarks against the Opteron or
> Itanium.
> Nor do they have the balls to demonstrate the 64bit version of Unreal
> Tournament 2003.
>
> In the past they showed their G4 with 2MB cache running Photoshop compared
> to
> a P4 with 256KB or 512KB cache. They didnt dare go up against an
> Intel machine with 2MB cache.
>
> It is funny how no Apple fan site benchmark in past years included Unreal
> Tournament
> which is known to be CPU bound.
>
>
No use demonstrating games on the Macintosh, if you want to game you get an
Intel/AMD box, X-Box, PS2 or Cube etc
Gaming range is small and most titles if they ever make it to the platform,
are released months later.
Other software, well as far as value for money is usually cheaper on the PC.
Professional software however is priced the same,
but then it does run just as good on hardware that costs half the price of a
decent Macintosh. Apples best move so far has been the
dumping of there old technology in favour of a common ground, UNIX. That
alliance and there surrounding to that technology shall
kick start there future as far as more application releases.
As you said, I would like to see Apple, compare the new Duel G5 up against a
Duel AMD Opteron system and BTW the Opteron was launched
months before the G5! If you want to compare the Best with the Best, use the
best out of each World. Fact is the G5 isn't the fastest
and wasn't the first to be released to the public, Apple should stop lying
in its advertising.
If your happy with what you have and it works, great. But don't go making
assumptions about the opposition that aren't simply true or about
something you have no idea about. It must be sad, in the 1980's the Amiga
was superior and Apple owners where in denial, in the 1990's
it was mixed, then there messiah returned and gave them hope and now its the
next Millennium, where Wintel/AMD systems reigned supreme and Apple owners
are still in denial... <g>
Some one set-up a Duel G5 and Duel Opteron shoot-out, with Unreal/DoomIII or
any other intense graphical game....
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 18:02:50 +1000
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Gareth Church wrote:
'They also use an inefficient compiler for the P4'
Firstly, Apple didn't use one, Veritest did. They used the gcc so they
could use the same compiler for both. Just as the Intel numbers may have
been higher with the Intel compiler, the Apple numbers might have been
higher with a different compiler. Gcc has also been available on Intel
longer than PowerPC.
OSX in my opinion beats other operating systems I've used (Linux, Solaris,
Win95, Win98, WinXP), and now Apple has a nice new machine to run it on.
Apple fans have been fans for a long time, despite their machines being
slower. Now they are on par, I think they will become even more fanatical,
no matter how much you pick holes in the benchmarking :)
"Alan" <alan@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSX.4.43.0306261748040.442-100000@no-spam
> 'but they disable hyperthreading'
>
> That's because it was faster without it.
Don't believe everything marketting VPs tell you. Hyperthreading gives a
fairly reasonable increase in speed. If disabling it gives an increase in
speed, then there's something wrong with the testing method. I stand by what
I say - it will be interesting to see the results when the machines become
common place and can be tested more thoroughly and independantly.
Gareth
"Alan" <alan@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSX.4.43.0306261752430.448-100000@no-spam
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Gareth Church wrote:
>
> 'They also use an inefficient compiler for the P4'
>
> Firstly, Apple didn't use one, Veritest did. They used the gcc so they
> could use the same compiler for both. Just as the Intel numbers may have
> been higher with the Intel compiler, the Apple numbers might have been
> higher with a different compiler.
In the real world you don't use the same compiler to even things out. You
use the best compiler available, for both platforms. Like I said, it will be
interesting to see some more independant reviews.
> Gcc has also been available on Intel
> longer than PowerPC.
I assume your point (or, more specifically Greg Joswiaks point) is that it
has been available longer, so is likely to be better/faste for Intel. That
may well be the case, but just goes to show how pointless it was to use the
same compiler to make things even, if you know that the performance of the
compiler is going to be different on different platforms.
> OSX in my opinion beats other operating systems I've used (Linux, Solaris,
> Win95, Win98, WinXP), and now Apple has a nice new machine to run it on.
Yes, and that's the real news here. As you say OSX is a good operating
system, and that is the reason that people use the Apple platform. Comparing
the G5 to PC machines is interesing for interests sake, but the important
comparison is the G5 to Apples previous offerings. And I have no doubt the
G5 flogs the log of the G5 and earlier. Hooray for Mac users.
> Apple fans have been fans for a long time, despite their machines being
> slower. Now they are on par, I think they will become even more fanatical,
> no matter how much you pick holes in the benchmarking :)
God, there's a scary thought.
Gareth
Gareth Church wrote:
> "Alan" <alan@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSX.4.43.0306261752430.448-100000@no-spam
> > On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Gareth Church wrote:
> >
> > 'They also use an inefficient compiler for the P4'
> >
> > Firstly, Apple didn't use one, Veritest did. They used the gcc so they
> > could use the same compiler for both. Just as the Intel numbers may have
> > been higher with the Intel compiler, the Apple numbers might have been
> > higher with a different compiler.
>
> In the real world you don't use the same compiler to even things out. You
> use the best compiler available, for both platforms. Like I said, it will be
> interesting to see some more independant reviews.
Um, sorry Gareth, but this -is- the real world. There isn't really
a fictional world, except of course in fiction. Apple did use the same
compiler to attempt to make the differences as small as possible.
They used the same compiler to even out comparisons on the hardware,
not about the code used in production software.
> > Gcc has also been available on Intel
> > longer than PowerPC.
>
> I assume your point (or, more specifically Greg Joswiaks point) is that it
> has been available longer, so is likely to be better/faste for Intel. That
> may well be the case, but just goes to show how pointless it was to use the
> same compiler to make things even, if you know that the performance of the
> compiler is going to be different on different platforms.
Why is it pointless? If Apple uses a compiler that has more/better
optimisations on intel than on PPC, and it shows that the PPC is
still faster, that is interesting. If it showed that the PPC was
slower, we couldn't really deduce much from it (especially if the
difference was fairly small).
> > OSX in my opinion beats other operating systems I've used (Linux, Solaris,
> > Win95, Win98, WinXP), and now Apple has a nice new machine to run it on.
>
> Yes, and that's the real news here. As you say OSX is a good operating
> system, and that is the reason that people use the Apple platform. Comparing
> the G5 to PC machines is interesing for interests sake, but the important
> comparison is the G5 to Apples previous offerings. And I have no doubt the
> G5 flogs the log of the G5 and earlier. Hooray for Mac users.
I think we'll all agree that the 970 is a *lot* faster than the 74xx
chips!
> > Apple fans have been fans for a long time, despite their machines being
> > slower. Now they are on par, I think they will become even more fanatical,
> > no matter how much you pick holes in the benchmarking :)
>
> God, there's a scary thought.
indeed!
dale
Oh, for god's sake! I've read the whole debate now (both sides), and
the diff between G5 and Intel isn't enough to be significant for
either side to claim any real lead. By the time you choke the boxen
down with the latest bloatware OS's, the speed bump on either platform
will be fuck all (at least fuck all worth the money)
Stop feeding the shithead trolls, people. loo@no-spam is
probably just some arrogant kid who thinks his IT preferences suit
every user. Why give him the satisfaction of hurt responses? Just
ignore him.
Steve Jay,
Hobart, Tasmania.
(Why do so many usenet dudes hide behind pseudonyms?)
"loo" <loo@no-spam> wrote in message news:<bdbhjd$19c2$1@no-spam>...
> Apple is comparing their new 64bit machine against a 32bit machine.
> They aint got the balls to show us the benchmarks against the Opteron or
> Itanium.
> Nor do they have the balls to demonstrate the 64bit version of Unreal
> Tournament 2003.
>
> In the past they showed their G4 with 2MB cache running Photoshop compared
> to
> a P4 with 256KB or 512KB cache. They didnt dare go up against an
> Intel machine with 2MB cache.
>
> It is funny how no Apple fan site benchmark in past years included Unreal
> Tournament
> which is known to be CPU bound.
In article <84b7109e.0306291359.1921ad75@no-spam>, Steve Jay <stephen.jay@no-spam> wrote:
> Oh, for god's sake! I've read the whole debate now (both sides), and
> the diff between G5 and Intel isn't enough to be significant for
> either side to claim any real lead. By the time you choke the boxen
> down with the latest bloatware OS's, the speed bump on either platform
> will be fuck all (at least fuck all worth the money)
>
> Stop feeding the shithead trolls, people. loo@no-spam is
> probably just some arrogant kid who thinks his IT preferences suit
> every user. Why give him the satisfaction of hurt responses? Just
> ignore him.
>
> Steve Jay,
> Hobart, Tasmania.
>
> (Why do so many usenet dudes hide behind pseudonyms?)
>
> "loo" <loo@no-spam> wrote in message news:<bdbhjd$19c2$1@no-spam>...
> > Apple is comparing their new 64bit machine against a 32bit machine.
> > They aint got the balls to show us the benchmarks against the Opteron or
> > Itanium.
> > Nor do they have the balls to demonstrate the 64bit version of Unreal
> > Tournament 2003.
> >
> > In the past they showed their G4 with 2MB cache running Photoshop compared
> > to
> > a P4 with 256KB or 512KB cache. They didnt dare go up against an
> > Intel machine with 2MB cache.
> >
> > It is funny how no Apple fan site benchmark in past years included Unreal
> > Tournament
> > which is known to be CPU bound.
Well said Steve.
"Don't feed the trolls" is a rule to live by on USENET :)
So is "top-posting is bad, mmkay?" :)
Jason <matreya_nospam@no-spam> wrote:
<snip doctor>
> So is "top-posting is bad, mmkay?" :)
So is not snipping :)
Who?... DrWho
Jason <matreya_nospam@no-spam> wrote:
<snip doctor>
> Yeah, but totally erasing the context is a bad thing too :)
Not if the context of the post has nothing to do with what you are
replying to. Bottom posters are just as bad as top posters, as in they
leave all sorts of past dribble behind and that makes it hard on the
reader.
You are really supposed to reply by paragraph and snip irrelavant text.
Who?... DrWho