Athlon 64 vs. Apple G5 Systems: Not Even Close (chart)

[man104]

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,8,00.asp

 

[Emrys]

Nice Spam Job there...

Your free to speak your mind, but that doesn't make you intelligent or mean you have anything interesting to say....

 

[Graphite]

Yeah, wow... lets start comparing two biased bench marks against each other.

yes, your view is welcome with your very extensive and content filled post, bravo.

 

[man104]

Boy, I didn't type a word and look what I get

I'm sorry to say, MACs are not the best, never were, never will be.

Nice Spam Job there...

You're free to speak your mind, but that doesn't make you intelligent or mean you have anything interesting to say....

 

[man104]

So you think Apple only benches tell the story?

Isn't that special...let's write benchmarks to run good on macs only, then LIE about how it really performs against Intel and AMD. Bottom line is that Intel and especially AMD will run faster.

Yeah, wow... let's start comparing two biased bench marks against each other.

yes, your view is welcome with your very extensive and content filled post, bravo.

 

[Emrys]

Actually you came into an open Mac enthusiast site, and insinuated that our "choice" of hardware was inferior. If you don't like Macs fine, choose your superior platform.

Your not gonna switch anybody here...

 

[Emrys]

Bottom line is that Intel and especially AMD will run faster.

I'll believe it when I see it...

 

[Graphite]

as for writing benchmarks that run 'good' on macs only.. what do you think PC is doing? they are choosing benchmarks that appear to run better on a PC.

You really really, need to open your eyes man. seriously you have no idea what your talking about.

 

[man104]

Believe it when you see it? Are you blind man?

Click on the link, using you ergonomic mac mouse!

I'll believe it when I see it...

 

[Murlyn]

It's always interesting that at the time when the first stats came up.. all the PC users were up in arms and didn't believe it and went around everywhere trying to find places that prooved their point.. and then other sites had to get even more technical and explain why Apple's stats were correct and why the moron that posted the PC stats that were better was exactly that.. a moron.. now that time has gone by and there are different processors out and Apple might not be, not sure on this one, the fastest personal computer anymore.. PC users have to say.. I told you so! and believe every single PC is faster than Mac statistics out there.. without even checking up on them!

Sure Mac users are guilty of the same crimes.. it's just plain rediculous.. the worse part is that this guy probably has not used an OS X box and is just spouting propaganda and has no clue what he is talking about.

And that mac sucks site.. whew.. "objective" *grin* People would get fired before they got through the door, if they were as "objective" as that guy

I need to make a point and not get into any discussions about PC vs Mac.. if someone asks.. Ill tell them my opinions.. if not.. i wont.. and if they want to have a fight about.. Ill let them walk outside.. Ill close the door. and they can fight with themself

 

[man104]

Suuuuure

I'm sure PC world would put their credibility on the line by providing"bias" results, like what MAC did with their results.

We have no even considered the theoretical design superiority of the AMD64 line.

as for writing benchmarks that run 'good' on macs only.. what do you think PC is doing? they are choosing benchmarks that appear to run better on a PC.

You really really, need to open your eyes man. seriously you have no idea what your talking about.

 

[Graphite]

Wow.. this thread is really going down hill.

and how about you click this link http://www.apple.com/powermac/

 

[Emrys]

I think PCMag would do anything to sell a copy. Who buys mags these days?

Your comment about the theoretical design of the AMD64 intrigues me....

What do you mean by that? Care to explain what the design of the AMD64 is, what they are they trying to accomplish? I am totally serious here.....

 

[Murlyn]

I am quite curious about that also.. I know at the time the G5 was the fastest personal computer, which according to the website.. it still is, but theoretically.. I am interesting in the AMD64...

 

[man104]

According tp PC world test, G5 is NOT AS fast, not by a long shot

How We Test: In Adobe Premiere we timed the rendering of our workspace and timed the export of a 959-frame movie at 720 by 480 resolution and 30 frames per second into the QuickTime format. In Adobe Photoshop we timed the operation of ten filters on a 50MB image file and a 150MB file. In Microsoft Word we timed a search-and-replace of one word in a 1437-page document, and the execution of the auto summarize function on a 210-page document. We ran Quake III version 1.32's included "timedemo four" using high quality settings at two resolutions, and recorded the average frame rate. All machines were tested with 1GB of RAM and the ATI Radeon 9800 Pro graphics card; the Mac version of the graphics card has a maximum of 128MB of RAM, while the high end for PCs is 256MB. Most of the PCs used dual, RAID-striped hard drives; the Apple systems did not. We retested the Alienware Aurora with the 128MB Radeon 9800 Pro card and without RAID for more-direct comparison with the G5 systems. Tests on PCs performed by the PC World Test Center; tests on Apple systems performed by the Macworld Test Center. All rights reserved. Chart Notes: In Quake III, higher is better; elsewhere, lower is better. Best scores in bold.

*** Note that the MACs were tested BY MACWORLD, not PC World.

I am quite curious about that also.. I know at the time the G5 was the fastest personal computer, which according to the website.. it still is, but theoretically.. I am interesting in the AMD64...

 

[Emrys]

What clock speeds are we talking?

If you have a 4GHz Athlon and a 2 GHz G5, then this is obvious...

What you posted just defines the bench... What are the marks and specs?

 

[man104]

Well for starters.....

The Athlon 64 FX has a dual channel integrated DDR controller. The memory performance is incredible to say the least, beating even the highest end P4 by a good margin. Second is Hypertransport which is a the bus that serves the rest of the system, runs at 1.6 Ghz

I think PCMag would do anything to sell a copy. Who buys mags these days?

Your comment about the theoretical design of the AMD64 intrigues me....

What do you mean by that? Care to explain what the design of the AMD64 is, what they are they trying to accomplish? I am totally serious here.....

 

[Graphite]

macs and pcs have been switching whose on top, all the time. But honestly.. don't talk to us about it, if you have a problem with Macs being "slower" please by all means email IBM they make our chips.

 

[man104]

We are talking about a 2.2 Ghz Athlon 65 FX

As you can see from the PCWorld chart, the 2.0 Athlon 64 beats or equals G5 aswell.

What clock speeds are we talking?

If you have a 4GHz Athlon and a 2 GHz G5, then this is obvious...

What you posted just defines the bench... What are the marks and specs?

 

[Emrys]

Actually went to that PCWorld link and the results are not that dissimilliar. They are VERY close. So I don't see the argument here.