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

[Graphite]

Hello all. Well, I think one main problem with some of these arguements is that they most of the people know about one platform and not the other.

Here are some facts about x86-64 technology

1) the 64 bit MS OS for x86-64 is due in q1 of next year. there are already betas running around like crazy.

2)With an AMD opteron, you can have up to 8GB of memory PER CPU. So, if you build an 8 way system, you can have 64 GB of memory. And that limit is only because of the fact that you can only get 2GB ECC DDR PC2700 dimms (3200 with jedec approves the ecc 3200 standard)

3)the athlon fx runs at 2.2GHZ. And most likely will be at 2.8ghz as early as june.

4)the k-8 architecture was due out almost exactly 1 year ago, but AMD had problems implementing SOI. They partnered up with IBM and got it done.

5)Much of the architecture on the g5 processor is actually from AMD, hypertransport is an example...


If there are any other questions one might have, I will most likely be able to answer them

I don't know most of the members here are switchers... the others consist of general computer time tested experts (due to seeing the two parties brance from the same place)

Don't under estimate us. But, your information is still nice to hear

 

[July]

64-bit Linux:

tp://store.suse.com/dr/v2/ec_MAIN.Entry10?xid=40017&SP=10023&PN=1&V1=614097&DSP=&CUR=840&PGRP=0&CACHE_ID=0 (outdated link removed)

and

Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system

64-bit computing has been around for much longer than the G5, or Opteron. Say hello to the ******* child that is the itanium from Intel. It's 64-bit to the core and has been around for ages. It's definitely not a consumer chip however. I'm not sure if it's been on Linux that long, but I'm quite sure that the itanium has been in use on Unix for quite sometime. I found an article dated back to 2000 that was discussing how Yahoo! was going to begin modification of freeBSD to utilize the 64-bit architecture.

Anyway after that bit of trivia... Who gives a rat's left testicle if PCs are faster, sure we buy our macs because they're sexy speed demons, but that's not the only reason. We buy them because of OSX, iTunes, iMovie, iPhoto, iCal, iDVD, iChat, Safari, iSync, Final Cut Pro, Microsoft Office X (which from everything I know is actually more feature rich than Office XP ever could be), After Effects and the fact that it's Unix Based. My Dual G5s will be fast enough when I get them to do everything I need and more, OSX will perform better than XP or Longhorn will ever hope to. Plus you don't have to put up with M$'s annoying TOS and activation bullhonky.

-DM

P.S. AMD has been developing the Athlon FX for quite sometime, but who was first to put a consumer 64-bit chip on the market, Apple. Putting the G5 several months behind the release of the Athlon FX so of course AMD chips are going to be faster they're putting a newer product out, and guess what? Whoever comes out with the newest chip is going to probably be the fastest, Apple was, now AMD is, and Apple will be. It's a cycle, and nothing more. So you turds out there need to stop bashing the Mac folk, what goes around comes around.

P.P.S. Why not just put all of this behind us anyway, and just dwell on the fact we dislike intel (and they're way out of the game)? If you heart AMD at all, you can certainly agree to that. Mac users have to hate apple, I think it's part of the TOS when you start your Mac for the first time.

 

[GummiRaccoon]

64 bit has been around longer than titanium even. Anyone remember Digital? Maybe a little processor called Alpha? And a lot of the alpha team now works for intel.

skad, you do care, it's that simple, if you didn't you wouldn't say anything.

Well, I like to know about all the differences in architectures... When I first heard what apple was doing, I went and read up on power4 as much as I could find.

The problem I have notices, and I have seen this with intel people too, most apple and intel folks don't bother reading up on what everyone else is doing, so when their fav company comes out with something new, they assume they were the first, and the g5 was a paper launch. Intel and AMD both do that too. I hate it when they do that, cuz then, every zealot who isn't paying attention starts bragging about something that isn't even available. Like the 1ghz p3.

 

[IndigoK7]

*sigh*

Ignorance in the Computer world is always a dangerous thing.

First off, let me say I started off on a mac. Now I own 9 PC's at home. Of which 7 I built (one's a pre-fab OEM and the other is a laptop).

I have been watching this thread take shape and I do have to comment on a few things.


Film runs at 24 Frames per second. 35mm at least does. It's running at 12 FPS, but each frame is shown twice. That's direct experience from 4 years of movie theatre biz.

Secondly, the G5 takes a back door to most x86 processors because it is not the same design obviously. I have a friend with a 400 MHz Apple, and I gotta say, even that thing is painfully slow to me compared to a K6-2 400 that I have.

This is gonna hurt, but I have an Athlon XP 2400+ running at 2.3 GHz, and it slams down 318 FPS in Quake 3. It's not a 64 bit CPU. It's got plain-jane DDR. It's only SSE capable. It absolutely pummels everything except the fastest computers out there. The G5 is not one of those. I hate being a nitpick, and I have repeatedly come to the defense of Mac users in the past, but when people get over zealous, and get behind something that only blinds them further, I have to say I disapprove. If you use the Mac for it's natural benefits, then that is totally awesome. You get kudos for that. But if someone says that a Mac, (G5, G4, whatever) can outrun a PC, especially an AMD... then you're only lying to yourself)

You guys seem like decent folk, most Mac users are, but there's one problem with 99% of you - You're blind to the rest of the world. As Gummi was saying, Intel and Apple users are so content on seeing what their "father" Intel or Apple is bringing home, that they cannot fend for themselves and see the truth. If AMD had the marketing muscle of Intel or even Apple, then they wouldn't exist as they do today. Independant research studies show that Apple and Wintel users are less knowledgable when it comes down to inherent technology performance. I'll dig up the URL that I found that on, but that was a few months ago, so there's no promising I can do it.

But please guys, the squabbles need to stop... Yes, one is better suited to some tasks, but I get tired of the lies that comes from the company who uses a fruit to designate their logo. I respect Apple for their technology usefulness, but not their arrogance. Sure, everyone has a right to say their stuff is better than the rest, but when they compare it on the same level as something else all the time... then it gets pathetic. and I'm just running in circles now, so I'll shush. It is unlikely you will ever see me post here again.

 

[MacAddikt]

i dont think it matters who has the faster computer, any top of the line computer is going to plenty fast for any home user. my only concern is that my computer run a quality, stable operating system that doesnt require any effort to do tasks, is easy to figure out, and is aesthetically pleasing. only the new Mac OS has proven to do these things to me.

 

[GummiRaccoon]

I currently use windows 2k. I am about to upgrade to windoews xp. I love 2k, it is stable as all ****, I've been running it for the whole time I've had this computer and I haven't had a single lock up. I am going to install xp because it has a bunch more features and is just as stable, I will be running both OSes on this machine. The mac os may be nice for you guys to use, but I gotta tell ya, windows oses are second nature for me. All of it is very simple for me, 2k and xp are easily the 2 easiest to use oses I've ever used, and that included osx.

 

[Emrys]

Well, I am at work today. And my Win2K machine blue screened three times today. I have this sucker as lean as I can get it, and still be able to perform my daily functions ( not those daily functions .... ). I too was into Win2K BIG time before I found my Mac. But everyday that I use my Mac, I am more happy with my decision to switch. Not only the switch to Mac, but to loose all of my MS OS's, and to incorporate Linux as much as possible. Of course this is just my situation

 

[hokiethang]

Well, I am at work today. And my Win2K machine blue screened three times today. I have this sucker as lean as I can get it, and still be able to perform my daily functions ( not those daily functions .... ). I too was into Win2K BIG time before I found my Mac. But everyday that I use my Mac, I am more happy with my decision to switch. Not only the switch to Mac, but to loose all of my MS OS's, and to incorporate Linux as much as possible. Of course this is just my situation

I have to agree with this. I have switched all of my equipment in my apartment over to linux. I have one machine that i kept windows xp on just to play games, the rest run linux and have uptimes of more than a month each. The windows XP machine (which is optimized for gaming) stays up for maybe a week at a time until something crashes and the machine restarts without a helpful bsod. OS X and linux are far more stable than a regular win2k / xp installation, in my experience. This thread was originally started to present biased benchmarks about the athlon fx, not windows vs os x, so i will digress on further discussion.

As for the athlon fx vs the g5, benchmarks dont mean anything, actual use of a machine and using the software that is standard (im sorry but adobe premiere is far from standard), as well as using truly compatible benchmarking environments (run linux not windows vs os x, but linux on both), as apple did when they did the comparison between the xeons and the g5. When the software can fully take advantage of a 64 bit architecture, more accurate comparisons can be made between the systems. Until then, no one is going to change anyone's mind about athlon fx or G5, so further bashing of either really isnt needed.

 

[GummiRaccoon]

Something I noticed....

I am actually having this discussion on 3 seperate forums... and this is the only one where people keep on saying "Doesn't matter, I don't care, amd cheated, it'll only be fair if you wait this long and put this software on" I wonder why that is. AND this is one of 2 apple forums the second being AMD.

 

[hokiethang]

Something I noticed....

I am actually having this discussion on 3 seperate forums... and this is the only one where people keep on saying "Doesn't matter, I don't care, amd cheated, it'll only be fair if you wait this long and put this software on" I wonder why that is. AND this is one of 2 apple forums the second being AMD.

I never said AMD cheated, I said PC world cheated, because PC world has a specific audience to please, an audience who don't care about macs and very possibly hate macs (for no apparent reason other than ignorance). Mac world wouldnt run a story about an athlon machine being faster than a G5, but instead would bend the truth to show the G5 being better than the athlon, even if it isnt in reality. Im also saying that benchmarks dont mean anything, they are just numbers, actually using the machine produces human benchmarks, not software benchmarks. I do believe that in order for an experiment to be fair and correct, you need to eliminate as many variables as possible. With machines being as different as they are, the software should be as common as possible for a fair comparison. Since OS X doesnt run on wintel, and windows doesnt run on PPC, linux is the only common ground. If you think you should use different software for each machine, id suggest going back to sixth grade and learning the whole scientific method over again. Think what you want, but like i said, you arent going to convince anyone that you are right, as im probably not going to convince you that im right.

 

[GummiRaccoon]

Ok, and what percentage of people use Linux? It's hardly a large crowd. You have to build each machine to its best specs. That more accuratly shows what you can get in the real world. I've seen AMD machines get well over 450 FPS in quake3, (actually I've seen up to 1000 but that is a whole seperate topic for overclockers).. From what I've seen at this forum is that you guys basically repeat the pr that apple hands to you and run with it, if anyone comes up with something different, they're liars or cheaters or whatever. That is why I think apple will always be behind in performance, they have no competition. But for some reason you guys are happy with your computers coming out with an improvement once in a year. Thanks to the competition between AMD and Intel the 1.2ghz processor I have in my machine cost me 30 dollars and has lasted me for over a year now, and the 2 ghz processor I will upgrade to will cost me 70 bucks and will last me another year. And when I feel like upgrading to something past that, I just have to buy a motherboard that will cost me less than 100 bucks and that'll last me for another year past that. ALL thanks to competition. Which you guys don't have, cuz steve jobs tells you that that is bad.

 

[hokiethang]

Ok, and what percentage of people use Linux? It's hardly a large crowd. You have to build each machine to its best specs. That more accuratly shows what you can get in the real world. I've seen AMD machines get well over 450 FPS in quake3, (actually I've seen up to 1000 but that is a whole seperate topic for overclockers).. From what I've seen at this forum is that you guys basically repeat the pr that apple hands to you and run with it, if anyone comes up with something different, they're liars or cheaters or whatever. That is why I think apple will always be behind in performance, they have no competition. But for some reason you guys are happy with your computers coming out with an improvement once in a year. Thanks to the competition between AMD and Intel the 1.2ghz processor I have in my machine cost me 30 dollars and has lasted me for over a year now, and the 2 ghz processor I will upgrade to will cost me 70 bucks and will last me another year. And when I feel like upgrading to something past that, I just have to buy a motherboard that will cost me less than 100 bucks and that'll last me for another year past that. ALL thanks to competition. Which you guys don't have, cuz steve jobs tells you that that is bad.

do you want raw performance or real world usage tests? real world usage tests are SUBJECTIVE, not objective. raw performance would come through an objective scientific test, not a subjective usage test. FPS in quake doesnt mean anything, as quake is a game. A game that relies more upon the video card than the processor. A mac is not a toy, a pc is. You obviously arent reading anything that has been posted so im going to stop with the benchmarks because you obviously dont understand them.

The lack of competition makes the product solid. The price could drop if there were competition, but then the quality of the product would be decreased. There arent 400+ manufacturers making crappy components causing the OS to crash. If windows were designed for a small set of hardware, it could possibly be more stable than os x. Software stability is not because of user error, its because the software isnt written to take correct advantage of the hardware, not because i dont know windows. I have used windows for 10+ years, i know what im doing.

I don't have to upgrade my mac every year, unlike the pc, where if you dont upgrade it every year you are behind. I know people who have used the same mac for more than 10 years, which is cheaper than upgrading a PC, (at a typical cost of $350) every year for those 10 years, and their usage of these machines was on par with the PC i was using at the time. Also you would be paying more for quality equipment, quality software and quality service. Consumer reports rated Apple technical support a 76/100 points, the next closest was Dell at less than a 40/100 points. That was actually part of the reason I switched. I plan on keeping my laptop for at least 5 years, something that is rare for PC users. I have had 4 PC laptops, all lasted less than a year before becoming obsolete. My friend who has a Powerbook G3 Pismo, has lasted him a nice long time and he still uses it today. Just because you think, we made a wrong choice , doesnt mean you are right. I am happy with my powerbook, and in the future i plan on getting more apple hardware. If microsoft can promise the stability i get with my mac, i would reconsider a PC, but after working with them as long as I have, I dont see anyone providing the level of stability I currently have with my powerbook.

I'm done with this argument, as you dont seem to be reading anything, nor contributing any valid or useful points and just posting more whines about benchmarks, software and no competition. I am a happy mac user and no insults you can make will convince me (or anyone else for that matter) that my mac is inferior.

 

[Absolute Zero]

Ugh. You people are crazy.
FIrst there was the PowerMac G3, the worlds fastest personal computer. Mac bashers went crazy. Pentium 3 came out and whooped it. HAH TAKE THAT MACKERS!!!
The "Mackers" b*tch slapped Wintel Weenies with the G4, again, the worlds fastest. Pentium 4 came out. They thought Mackers were dead. 4 years later, WEE HERE TAKE THIS G5!!!!22121@one. 64 BIT! RUNS 32 BIT APPS!!! 8 GB OF MEMORY!!! WEEE!!!!!
And now AMD comes along. Congrats to AMD. Prepare to get smoked with our 5 GHz G6's and 25 GHz G7's!!!!1121@!@!one
(some rumour that was on mac roumurs after steve announced the PMG5)
It's a neverending train.
But WHO GIVES A FLYING FLAMING BAG OF S**T!!!!!!! There computers. come on... It dosnt matter who has the fastest computer.
Now go hug your F**king wintels, if computers mean that much to you.
Sorry if i seem mad... just had a big fight with someone.

 

[GummiRaccoon]

ROFL, That has got to be one of the funniest arguements I have ever heard. Competition is a bad thing? Since when? The only reason that a PC becomes obsolete every few years is because they MAKE ADVANCEMENTS in their technology. If you have a ton of problems with 2k or xp, it's user error. Also, one houndred dollars or less every year as an upgrade is less than 1000 dollars over 10 years and there are very few worth while macs out there that cost less than 1k and sure as **** are not going to run the current mac application.

 

[man104]

Win2k crashing 3 times a day eh?

You are either lying or you have hardware issues. Win2k is used by corporations all over. I wonder why they are not using OSx?

Well, I am at work today. And my Win2K machine blue screened three times today. I have this sucker as lean as I can get it, and still be able to perform my daily functions ( not those daily functions .... ). I too was into Win2K BIG time before I found my Mac. But everyday that I use my Mac, I am more happy with my decision to switch. Not only the switch to Mac, but to loose all of my MS OS's, and to incorporate Linux as much as possible. Of course this is just my situation

 

[hokiethang]

You are either lying or you have hardware issues. Win2k is used by corporations all over. I wonder why they are not using OSx?

just because companies and corporations use software doesnt mean its not inferior. A place where I used to work had windows 95 machines, because they couldnt afford upgrading all 25,000 machines they owned to support windows xp, nor OS X. The 100 or so apple machines they owned, ran OS X 10.1 (latest at the time) with no hiccups.

 

[GummiRaccoon]

Also, lockheed martin still runs 3x86s in many offices, that is much older than 10 year old technology, it all still works however without any enhancements that have come over the last decade.

 

[July]

As the great Strong Bad would say "Holy crap nerds!"

I think that sums it up fairly well.

No matter how hard any of us argue it doesn't matter, our points may end up being understood but the opponents will not say "you're right." To say a Mac runs for ten years just fine, is something that can be said for a PC. Every argument made can be said for either side, because in reality they're the exact same things: computers. Computers, as different as they can be, are still computers and so they'll be for the end of time. I have a different processor, I have a different OS, I have a different video card, well guess what? They all do the same basic tasks with a little deviation from such here and there.

So why get so bent up about all of this? The arguments aren't even about the G5 and Athlon FX any more it's about whatever random crap people can think of. I say let's grab a cup o' joe and kick back watch some DVDs and giggle until the sun comes up.

I love Macs and I use a PC (An AMD Athlon 2700+ w/ 512mb of DDR400) currently, but I'll be buying a Mac (Dual G5s) for things I consider important. And you folks buy whatever you buy because it's what you value and not what someone else does. I've kicked the **** out of OS X and Win2k, I've had both freeze up on me (today I froze up Red hat 9.0 [random fact]), I've had both go belly up, and I've had both work flawlessly for ages. The pendulum swings both ways...

I'll agree that the Athlon FX is faster than the G5 at some things, if not most, but then again there will be those that G5 will do better. It's always going to be that way. I would however like to see a test between the two, for ***** and giggles, on a Linux box simply because I think that levels the playing fields completely.

Well this is already incoherent enough, so I'll leave it at this. I hope this makes some sense to you crazy folks out there in the magical land of the internet.

-July

P.S. When is Intel coming out with a 64-bit consumer processor? I’m sure it’ll crush everything when it comes out… As all next generation processors do.

 

[RobDreugan]

I can't really get into this argument, although I like to argue and own a dual G5, I'm not yet fully mac educated as to start slamming people back and forth.

But as far as FPS goes.

Movies are 24 FPS, Television is 29.97FPS, and HDTV is 60FPS (for whatever reason.)

I would say tho, that I think benchmarks are always subjective. Those that have said quake isn't a good benchmark I would agree with, if quake were the only benchmark used. Now what I would say, is that I don't think quake 3 is a good test anymore. Getting 400+ frames a second under any platform, with high end hardware, really isn't a big deal. It's going beyond even what the game intended. If you really want to test the computer under certain circumstances using the 3d graphics as a test, let's use a game that's really intensive, not quake 3 which **** my Geforce 2, in my old pc could get 100FPS. Obviously, a slower card, but more than enough to run quake smoothly.

Realistically, a good benchmark should be done by a third party, maybe like a Tom's Hardware, or something where they can build a system, that pc world or mac world would create, and use some real tests on them. Test them using a higher end game that can really put a strain on a system, some rendering programs, etc..

If Amd made a faster processor god bless em' I've only used them for years. I bought my G5 so I could have a faster computer using software that I know utilizes video, audio, graphic type software better. (esp final cut pro 4, which unfortunately is mac only)

Not really worth getting in a "huff" for

 

[MacAddikt]

Also, one houndred dollars or less every year as an upgrade is less than 1000 dollars over 10 years and there are very few worth while macs out there that cost less than 1k and sure as **** are not going to run the current mac application.

clarification on what you mean?