The Mac G5 kicks ass
- Thread starter Apokalipse
- Start date
- Status
"<--you mean those crappy-looking plastic cases with the apples on the side? my case could whup one of those any day"
Huh? What? Seen a G5 lately? It's a 20.1 inch tall piece of aluminum with little to no plastic in the entire enclosure. If you are talking about a G4, sure, that is the case, its steel with plastic.
"yeah cuz the apple will get its ass stomped all over the new p4 3.2 GHz w/ 800MHz fsb and dual channel 400MHz ddr"
Dude...what are you smoking? Have you seen the specs of a G5? Lets take a look.
Dual 2.0ghz G5's with dedicated 1ghz front side bus for each chip...not only is that 200mhz faster, but there are two of them for a total throughput of 16Gb/s of data.
Then we have the system bus which again runs at an astonishing 1Ghz (kinda slow in comparison to 800mhz eh?) using Point-to-Point technology which avoids bandwidth issues....but then again, a P4 which had its ass wasted by this machine is slower?
Then again, that same G5 has Dual Channel DDR 400. I am lost as to the stomping...it seems the more advanced and bandwidth friendly machine wins...
Here is that P4 being molested.
Correct facts, good sir, are a godsend when attempting to argue against something.
Don't let me pull out NASA's benchmarks...or the Dual 3.06ghz Xeon getting hammered to the moon and back as they are quite embarrassing. I would hate also to see a true Floating Point comparison with Altivec enabled code on the G5. Could be quite scary.
Huh? What? Seen a G5 lately? It's a 20.1 inch tall piece of aluminum with little to no plastic in the entire enclosure. If you are talking about a G4, sure, that is the case, its steel with plastic.
"yeah cuz the apple will get its ass stomped all over the new p4 3.2 GHz w/ 800MHz fsb and dual channel 400MHz ddr"
Dude...what are you smoking? Have you seen the specs of a G5? Lets take a look.
Dual 2.0ghz G5's with dedicated 1ghz front side bus for each chip...not only is that 200mhz faster, but there are two of them for a total throughput of 16Gb/s of data.
Then we have the system bus which again runs at an astonishing 1Ghz (kinda slow in comparison to 800mhz eh?) using Point-to-Point technology which avoids bandwidth issues....but then again, a P4 which had its ass wasted by this machine is slower?
Then again, that same G5 has Dual Channel DDR 400. I am lost as to the stomping...it seems the more advanced and bandwidth friendly machine wins...
Here is that P4 being molested.
Correct facts, good sir, are a godsend when attempting to argue against something.
Don't let me pull out NASA's benchmarks...or the Dual 3.06ghz Xeon getting hammered to the moon and back as they are quite embarrassing. I would hate also to see a true Floating Point comparison with Altivec enabled code on the G5. Could be quite scary.
dethangel
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 934
glad to see you got your "ass-stopming" review at an unbiased site (www.apple.com) i would like to see a test that compares the P4C 3.2 ghz proc with a G5, from an unbiased person (such as the one i supplied for the P4 V Athlon XP debate)
and btw that test was done with a P4 3.0 ghz w/ a 533 mhz fsb and as far as the 64-bit processing thing goes there was a recent atricle in PC magazine about it and it stated that "there is currently no operating system that is optimized for a 64-bit processor" meaning that no OS (mac or pc) that can take full advantage of a 64-bit processor, which makes that point mute, once said OS is released you can be sure intel will release a chip to support it
and btw that test was done with a P4 3.0 ghz w/ a 533 mhz fsb and as far as the 64-bit processing thing goes there was a recent atricle in PC magazine about it and it stated that "there is currently no operating system that is optimized for a 64-bit processor" meaning that no OS (mac or pc) that can take full advantage of a 64-bit processor, which makes that point mute, once said OS is released you can be sure intel will release a chip to support it
Then again...note who did the tests.
Now lets get a slashdot discussion in here:
Slashdot No. 1
NASA Benchmarks
Slashdot No. 2
Slashdot No. 3
And there are more....remember, Slashdot is lots of Linux and Windows users and they enjoy digging the Mac.
Now lets get a slashdot discussion in here:
Slashdot No. 1
NASA Benchmarks
Slashdot No. 2
Slashdot No. 3
And there are more....remember, Slashdot is lots of Linux and Windows users and they enjoy digging the Mac.
dethangel
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 934
those tests are still all presented by an apple site, i would like to see a test from an unbiased 3rd-party company
and on the 64-bit thing i dint have the mag with me and i was doing it from memory, but here is the actual quote:
"to take advantage of 64-bit chips, you need 64-bit capable operating systems, apps and hardware drives. they wont emerge any time soon." -page 32 of Pcworld september 2003
speed is also not the only thing to take into consideration, the new g5 is quite pricey (the one you have been raving about is $2999)
http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=5296&page=2
and on the 64-bit thing i dint have the mag with me and i was doing it from memory, but here is the actual quote:
"to take advantage of 64-bit chips, you need 64-bit capable operating systems, apps and hardware drives. they wont emerge any time soon." -page 32 of Pcworld september 2003
speed is also not the only thing to take into consideration, the new g5 is quite pricey (the one you have been raving about is $2999)
http://techreport.com/ja.zz?comments=5296&page=2
"those tests are still all presented by an apple site, i would like to see a test from an unbiased 3rd-party company"
Unbiased...hmmm...Veritest is rather unbiased. If you look at their homepage you will note some of their customers include Microsoft, Dell, Compaq, IBM and HP. I highly doubt they want to alienate their customers by providing contorted and contrived benchmarks.
Check the facts of the tests...you will see the Dell was given as much of an advantage as possible...it even ran Linux so as to remove the Windows overhead.
And why not look at NASA's benchmarks? Are they not 3rd party enough? It is the government after all.
"to take advantage of 64-bit chips, you need 64-bit capable operating systems, apps and hardware drives. they wont emerge any time soon."
Yes, you need a 64bit OS (10.2.7 or Panther and the machine ships with the former), yes you need 64bit apps (GCC 3.3 ships for free with all Macs and I have it on both of my dev Macs and have recompiled all my apps already so as to be 64bit aware...takes all of 2 seconds) and hardware drives? What is that? A hard drive? That has nothing to do with 64bit technology.
But why bother...the G5 runs native 32bit operating systems and apps without a hitch and it runs them damn fast as well. 64bit really is to address the 8Gb of memory.
"speed is also not the only thing to take into consideration, the new g5 is quite pricey (the one you have been raving about is $2999)"
Like I said previously, no Mac is cheap, but you get what you pay for. Lets break this machine down shall we....
Dual 2.0Ghz G5 (PPC 970 from IBM) - 64bit procs with Altivec
Dual 1.0Ghz FSB connected to each processor
Single 1.0Ghz System Bus
4x Superdrive (DVD, CD Burner)
Space for 8Gb of RAM (Ships with 512mb)
Space for 500Gb of SATA HD space (Ships with 160Gb of SATA HD)
Three PCI-X slots
AGP 8x with an ATI 9600 Pro
Hypertransport System Architecture
A whole range of ports and optical audio out
Airport and Bluetooth Ready
Optional 56K modem
Gigabit Ethernet
Mac OS X and everything else in it
Now, configure a Dell with anywhere near those specs provided by NASA and tell me how you go...remember, NASA turned off a processor.
Unbiased...hmmm...Veritest is rather unbiased. If you look at their homepage you will note some of their customers include Microsoft, Dell, Compaq, IBM and HP. I highly doubt they want to alienate their customers by providing contorted and contrived benchmarks.
Check the facts of the tests...you will see the Dell was given as much of an advantage as possible...it even ran Linux so as to remove the Windows overhead.
And why not look at NASA's benchmarks? Are they not 3rd party enough? It is the government after all.
"to take advantage of 64-bit chips, you need 64-bit capable operating systems, apps and hardware drives. they wont emerge any time soon."
Yes, you need a 64bit OS (10.2.7 or Panther and the machine ships with the former), yes you need 64bit apps (GCC 3.3 ships for free with all Macs and I have it on both of my dev Macs and have recompiled all my apps already so as to be 64bit aware...takes all of 2 seconds) and hardware drives? What is that? A hard drive? That has nothing to do with 64bit technology.
But why bother...the G5 runs native 32bit operating systems and apps without a hitch and it runs them damn fast as well. 64bit really is to address the 8Gb of memory.
"speed is also not the only thing to take into consideration, the new g5 is quite pricey (the one you have been raving about is $2999)"
Like I said previously, no Mac is cheap, but you get what you pay for. Lets break this machine down shall we....
Dual 2.0Ghz G5 (PPC 970 from IBM) - 64bit procs with Altivec
Dual 1.0Ghz FSB connected to each processor
Single 1.0Ghz System Bus
4x Superdrive (DVD, CD Burner)
Space for 8Gb of RAM (Ships with 512mb)
Space for 500Gb of SATA HD space (Ships with 160Gb of SATA HD)
Three PCI-X slots
AGP 8x with an ATI 9600 Pro
Hypertransport System Architecture
A whole range of ports and optical audio out
Airport and Bluetooth Ready
Optional 56K modem
Gigabit Ethernet
Mac OS X and everything else in it
Now, configure a Dell with anywhere near those specs provided by NASA and tell me how you go...remember, NASA turned off a processor.
mj_1903 said:
so what exactly is your point,.. heavier, wider, deeper, taller and stronger is better? thats a wonderful basis don't you think?! your talking bout aluminum cases.. of course it isn't heavy(you probably dont have one so i gues you wouldn't know). and your talking bout my case,...and thats not even 1/4 of what i have inside. you totally miss the point.
anything the G5 can do,..my P4 can do better. and i don't even have to stress my point.
and don't reply to this,..because i know that youre just going to come up with a lame-ass response
"Taking the fun outta this question"
Generally means that you are having fun with it....Note you said:
"my 2.5g p4 can kick its ass anytime, anywhere"
which generally indicates a fist fight. Hence I was taking it on that line, a heavyweight boxing fight.
And if your computer is 39.2 pounds I would be surprised. And as you pointed out...strong, smash those two cases together and see which one comes out on top.
Then again, I have a PC upstairs, a PowerMac sitting next to me and the weight of every Mac in existence in an app....I think I know that aluminum is lighter...but a larger case means more aluminum and more innards.
"anything the G5 can do,..my P4 can do better. and i don't even have to stress my point. "
Actually, it seems you do have to stress your point. Note the benchmarks presented in the hyperlinks above. They indicate a lot of stressing from you is needed.
"and don't reply to this,..because i know that youre just going to come up with a lame-ass response"
Why not? I don't think fact is lame...if so then the world is in even bigger trouble than I thought. No matter which way you slice it, a Mac OS X G5 will run performance circles around a P4 of any speed.
Generally means that you are having fun with it....Note you said:
"my 2.5g p4 can kick its ass anytime, anywhere"
which generally indicates a fist fight. Hence I was taking it on that line, a heavyweight boxing fight.
And if your computer is 39.2 pounds I would be surprised. And as you pointed out...strong, smash those two cases together and see which one comes out on top.
Then again, I have a PC upstairs, a PowerMac sitting next to me and the weight of every Mac in existence in an app....I think I know that aluminum is lighter...but a larger case means more aluminum and more innards.
"anything the G5 can do,..my P4 can do better. and i don't even have to stress my point. "
Actually, it seems you do have to stress your point. Note the benchmarks presented in the hyperlinks above. They indicate a lot of stressing from you is needed.
"and don't reply to this,..because i know that youre just going to come up with a lame-ass response"
Why not? I don't think fact is lame...if so then the world is in even bigger trouble than I thought. No matter which way you slice it, a Mac OS X G5 will run performance circles around a P4 of any speed.
dethangel said:
Actually, no 3.0 Ghz Pentium 4 exists on the 533MHz bus- youre thinking of the 3.06GHz version (yes, there is a distinct model difference; Intel made a point of that). The 3.0 GHz Pentium used for this test was the new Pentium 4 3.0GHz running off of the 800MHz system bus. How do I know this? Because
1. It whoops the crap out of the Xeon (which does run at the 3.06GHz clock on a 533MHz bus)
2. The chip is stated as "Pentium 4 3.0 GHz". If it were the 3.06GHz, it would have been written that way.
No 64 bit OS'es? Mac OSX version 10.2.7 is is 64 bit optimized solution for the G5's till Panther, or version 10.3.0, is released in September. And thats funny how no 64 bit OS'es exist, because I can certainly tell you that I have the .dmg file of the Panther beta disks right here on my desktop and that is sure as hell real, and sure as hell 64 bit compatable. Also, Im almost 100% positive Microsoft has a new, 64 bit OS in either coding or beta stage, pending the arrival of the Athlon 64 x86 chip later this year.
Also, since when did Intel rule the OS market or tailor themselves to it? It is the job of the programmers at Microsoft to keep up with changing chip technology. OS'es and their updates are released to support chips. Chips are not created to support OS'es.
As of now, Intel's 64 bit processing is contained only in its Itanium processor, which is a joke for anything other than server or straight 64 bit workstation applications. AMD's Athlon 64 and Opteron cores have defined the PC 64bit/32bit compatable genre, but the trail was blazed, as a whole, by Apple and its G5.
--------------
Hmm.... on a little side note here; looks like dethangel has erased some of his more scrutinizied posts. Is there a reason for that? There better be, for the sole reason that you defended those posts like they were Catholic dogma coming under fire.
Also, Alexander, I accept your apology. It was not your fault. I misunderstood your intentions and viewed them as hostile. I appologize myself for any rude things I had said to you in that post that was derived from anger over that percieved personal injury.
mj_1903, thanks for the lame-ass response, as far as i know your just someone whos wasted 7 posts insisting that MACs or the G5 is kick_ass. I'd rather hear from someone who has tested the G5 in all aspects, not just speed..because speed is nothing if you haven't got the software to compliment it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
