Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => macOS => Topic started by: preacher on 21 September 2003, 19:43
-
Ok, well from what I hear, Apple is touting the G5 as the most powerful desktop pc ever. Now I dont know too much about the benchmarks they are using, however I truly am curious how many FPS at which resolutions they get on popular games. For instance Quake3 at 1600 X 1200, or Unreal Tournament 2003 at 1600 X 1200. Before anyone goes on about how gaming benchmarks arent fair judgements, I just want to say that I am just looking for a benchmark that I undertstand. If you know the url of a set of gaming benchmarks post it please, or if you have done your own, please post them.
-
G5 Tech Papers (pdf) (http://a448.g.akamai.net/7/448/51/df8683ae13dd56/www.apple.com/powermac/pdf/PowerMacG5_TO_072903.pdf)
(http://fett101.mine.nu/space/q3.gif)
-
do you mean to say that a mac is a better gaming machine than a PC.
BLASPHEMY!!!
I hope so, then Game Devs might pay more attention.
-
its not about if mac hardware runs games better or not. Its all about the mac software.
Imagine running Half Life or Warcraft on a system that wasn't plagued with all these virus's.
lets just port os x to the x86
-
quote:
Originally posted by mushrooomprince:
Imagine running Half Life or Warcraft on a system that wasn't plagued with all these virus's.
Does not compute.
-
In August Battle.net (the place where Warcraft people play online with each other for all you little kids) was hell because everyone had firewalls up and couldn't make games. So everyone joined my games instead. :D
-
Yeah i knew about that. In fact I still can't host games because of my firewall and router settings.
Anyways, my point is that mac os has the same level of security ( or probably better ) as Linux, but it has a greater range of software especially games.
Than Linux.
-
quote:
Originally posted by mushrooomprince:
its not about if mac hardware runs games better or not. Its all about the mac software.
Imagine running Half Life or Warcraft on a system that wasn't plagued with all these virus's.
lets just port os x to the x86
That would mean a certain death for Apple. It's not going to happen, and I hope it never does.
-
but they should sell NeXTStep again
-
quote:
Originally posted by Fett101:
G5 Tech Papers (pdf) (http://a448.g.akamai.net/7/448/51/df8683ae13dd56/www.apple.com/powermac/pdf/PowerMacG5_TO_072903.pdf)
(http://fett101.mine.nu/space/q3.gif)
Im sorry to tell you guys this, but that Quake3 benchmark proves the Apple G5 might not be top dog yet. True that Dell dimension is slower than the G5, but I have an issue of Maximum PC magazine in my hand that has Quake 3 Benchmarks for the 3.0 ghz P4C with a Radeon 9700 Pro backing it up and it was pushing 425 frames per second.
Well simply put the new athlon 64 trounced all over the 3.2 ghz p4 with hyperthreading, so I think pc users are safe from apple.
[ September 27, 2003: Message edited by: ThePreacher ]
-
Well good thing it's 100fps faster, or else I would have had to deal with a really laggy game at only 300fps!
-
quote:
Originally posted by Fett101:
G5 Tech Papers (pdf) (http://a448.g.akamai.net/7/448/51/df8683ae13dd56/www.apple.com/powermac/pdf/PowerMacG5_TO_072903.pdf)
(http://fett101.mine.nu/space/q3.gif)
Those scores are awfully low for a P4. Did Apple do the benchmarking? Here is a real benchmark of a P4 running Quake III@640x480. This one isn't modified to favor a certain processor.
The Pentium 4 in this test is a 3.2ghz but the difference between a 3ghz and a 3.2ghz is not no 120+ FPS. What is really impressive is the score the P4EE(Extreme Edition) gets.
(http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1063963274qjhbzk4xzd_5_2.gif)
There aren't any G5 benchmarks in there but as you can clearly see the P4 does alot better than what Apple wants people to think it does. As you can also see, the P4 is faster than the G5(and that is against a heavily optimized by Apple benchmark). Apple cripples the P4 in their tests to make it look bad. Apple has always pulled funky shit like that. You can't trust any benchmarks that come from Apple.
quote:
Originally posted by ThePreacher:
Im sorry to tell you guys this, but that Quake3 benchmark proves the Apple G5 might not be top dog yet. True that Dell dimension is slower than the G5, but I have an issue of Maximum PC magazine in my hand that has Quake 3 Benchmarks for the 3.0 ghz P4C with a Radeon 9700 Pro backing it up and it was pushing 425 frames per second.
Well simply put the new athlon 64 trounced all over the 3.2 ghz p4 with hyperthreading, so I think pc users are safe from apple.
[ September 27, 2003: Message edited by: ThePreacher ]
The Athlon 64 trounced it by a measly 5-15FPS(depending on the chipset). The P4EE trounces the Athlon FX by about 70 FPS.
[ September 27, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
{NT}
[ September 27, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
Here is a 2ghz Pentium 4 Williamette w/400mhz FSB with a Geforce 2 Ultra.
(http://www.hardware-unlimited.com/reviews/images/q3anp42640.gif)
That is only about 40FPS lower than Apple's benchmark of a 3ghz P4c Northwood w/800mhz FSB and Hyperthreading with a Radeon 9800. Apple is a real piece of work(*right*).
[ September 27, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
that's testing defaults across the board.
theyr'e using the default OpenGL for Quake, instead of optimized DirectX drivers. it's not exactly a good test of the processor, because MS's OpenGL implementation isn't as fast as it could be, and the video card is still going to be different. It's not an issue though, because GL is nearly always accelerated through DirectX drivers on Windows, while OS X relies solely on OpenGL.
actual results of running Quake3 on Windows will be markedly better, because of DirectX
[ September 27, 2003: Message edited by: Jimmy's Always On Topic ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy's Always On Topic:
that's testing defaults across the board.
theyr'e using the default OpenGL for Quake, instead of optimized DirectX drivers. it's not exactly a good test of the processor, because MS's OpenGL implementation isn't as fast as it could be, and the video card is still going to be different. It's not an issue though, because GL is nearly always accelerated through DirectX drivers on Windows, while OS X relies solely on OpenGL.
actual results of running Quake3 on Windows will be markedly better, because of DirectX
[ September 27, 2003: Message edited by: Jimmy's Always On Topic ]
What? Quake III doesn't have Direct3D support. ID Software has always supported OpenGL and OpenGL only. There are no if's ands or buts, Apple is a lying sack of shit.
[ September 27, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
let's not forget the Flawed Study of 1995, where MS payed off IDG to run a study of UIs, including Windows 95, Mac System 7, and the OS/2 Workplace Shell.
All participants were pulled from "random" samples... fortunately for MS, though, their pool of "random" people all happened to be Win95 beta testers. How convenient!
And the instructions for the test were all tasks specific to Windows, such as "install a print driver"... concepts that are drastically different in both OS/2 and System 7. Terms used in the instructions were things that users of other UIs would be unfamiliar with, as well.
When this was over, they came out and said that Win95 was the "best UI".
All that proves is that MS is a lying sack of shit.
Then they came out with all those lies about 98 and Me, and their recent "trustworthy computing" bull... which can be definitively disproved, what with the rising number of security and malware problems with Windows.
All that proves is that MS is a lying sack of shit.
I wouldn't have a problem running windows if anybody but MS made it... but MS is about the shittiest, shiftiest bunch of crapmasters I've ever seen. Apple is spiteful and recalcitrant, but MS is a bunch of shysters and con men.
-
the G5 is good but im still going to get me a SUn machine in 2005.
-
Well, what was it she said in the Bond movie "Goldeneye": You
-
Nahh, I'm not arguing over FPS because quite frankly, the Human eye can't tell the difference between 100FPS and 500FPS.
The whole point of the whole FPS thing is Apple does not disclose true benchmarks. They do everything in their power to cripple the Pentium that they are comparing their chips to so their cpu's look like they are so superior. The Quake III benchmark is not the only benchmark that Apple did this with for the G5. They also pulled the same shit with the G5 SPEC benchmarks. It is Deja Vu all over again....Apple did this same shit with the G4 and the G3.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/31405.html (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/31405.html)
You simply can't trust benchmarks that are disclosed by Apple. Apple fabricates their CPU's with lies. Lies that Mac users really beleive are true.
[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
nah. I don't believe em. the dual 5s might be fast, but they're not that fast. my 1.6 is hella quick, and for the things I do, I wouldn't use anything else... but for sheer speed, yeah, a 3GHz + P4 is gonna own it.
as for what I said earlier re: GL and DX, Windows' OpenGL subsystem uses the DirectX drivers instead of relying on generic GL calls, which improves its speed dramatically. Mac OS X uses raw GL.
Straight DirectX is faster still. OS X just isn't built for 3D games. It outdoes Windows with media work, though XP is no slouch there. I've done audio production on XP Pro and it's not bad. Configuring the hardware was nowhere near as simple, but it wasn't impossible either.
here, I gotta knock Linux... there's no way it'll do either high end games, or demanding media work. it's just not cut out for it. there's no interest in doing serious A/V work on UNIX
-
yeah here here they had to cheat to try to make themselves look good
nvidia anyone?
-
To be fair, I don't trust comparision benchmarks sanctioned by the company who made the hardware...no matter who the company is.
I wouldn't trust Intel sanctioned comparison benchmarks, AMD sanctioned benchmarks, Nvidia sanctioned benchmarks, ATI sanctioned benchmarks, etc. I don't trust benchmarks done by individual reviewers with a bias for a certain company either.
It is a known fact that the maker of the hardware will do whatever they can to make their hardware look like it is the best.
The only time I trust comparision benchmarks is when they are done by repituable, non-biased reviewers(like [H]ardOCP ).
[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy's Always On Topic:
nah. I don't believe em. the dual 5s might be fast, but they're not that fast. my 1.6 is hella quick, and for the things I do, I wouldn't use anything else... but for sheer speed, yeah, a 3GHz + P4 is gonna own it.
as for what I said earlier re: GL and DX, Windows' OpenGL subsystem uses the DirectX drivers instead of relying on generic GL calls, which improves its speed dramatically. Mac OS X uses raw GL.
Straight DirectX is faster still. OS X just isn't built for 3D games. It outdoes Windows with media work, though XP is no slouch there. I've done audio production on XP Pro and it's not bad. Configuring the hardware was nowhere near as simple, but it wasn't impossible either.
here, I gotta knock Linux... there's no way it'll do either high end games, or demanding media work. it's just not cut out for it. there's no interest in doing serious A/V work on UNIX
Listen to you, its a proven fact that Quake 3 runs faster on linux with OpenGL, on the exact same pc with Windows installed. Ive seen this time and time again. According to you it would run slower because linux is not suitable for games.
The truth of the matter is that you have no clue what you are talking about, so you should just be quiet. Linux is just as powerful an OS as any Microsoft product and Im sick of people like you trash talking it.
Thats ok though, Im going to play Unreal Tournament 2003 at 1600 x 1200 with anisotropic filtering on my horribly weak and pitiful OS that sucks at games. Soon I will play Doom3 on my OS that is good for nothing but being a server.
[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: ThePreacher ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy's Always On Topic:
that's testing defaults across the board.
theyr'e using the default OpenGL for Quake, instead of optimized DirectX drivers. it's not exactly a good test of the processor, because MS's OpenGL implementation isn't as fast as it could be, and the video card is still going to be different. It's not an issue though, because GL is nearly always accelerated through DirectX drivers on Windows, while OS X relies solely on OpenGL.
actual results of running Quake3 on Windows will be markedly better, because of DirectX
[ September 27, 2003: Message edited by: Jimmy's Always On Topic ]
OpenGL in Windows isn't tied into the DirectX sub-system at all. OpenGL is a standard Open Graphics Library that remains the same on all platforms. OpenGL on Windows, OpenGL on Linux, OpenGL on Unix, OpenGL on MacOS, OpenGL on BeOS, etc. is the same. It uses the same library with the same extensions, etc. That is why OpenGL is called cross platform.
MS only allows DirectX calls, extensions, acceleration, etc. to be used with DirectX. MS would be foolish to add DirectX acceleration to OpenGL because 1. That would give OpenGL what it needs to be graphically comparable to DirectX 8/9 and 2. OpenGL is open source, if MS added DirectX code to it anybody could view the source code of the MS modified OpenGL and steal some of the propriatary code of DirectX that was tied into it.
MS doesn't offer updates to OpenGL either. Nope, if you want OpenGL 1.4 in Windows it is included with NVidia's Detonator XP drivers, ATI's newer Catalyst drivers, Matrox's Pariphiela drivers, etc. or you have to go download it from OpenGL.org .
MS has nothing to do with OpenGL and MS certainly isn't going to help further the devolpment of it and add extra speed and features to it.
-
quote:
Originally posted by ThePreacher:
Listen to you, its a proven fact that Quake 3 runs faster on linux with OpenGL, on the exact same pc with Windows installed. Ive seen this time and time again. According to you it would run slower because linux is not suitable for games.
The truth of the matter is that you have no clue what you are talking about, so you should just be quiet. Linux is just as powerful an OS as any Microsoft product and Im sick of people like you trash talking it.
That is because you can't enable Anisotropic filtering and Full Scene Anti-Alasing in OpenGL games on Linux. More times than not people at have thier anisotropic filtering set to least 16tap in Windows. In Linux those games run with Bi-Linear filtering. That difference alone will make it look like it is faster in Linux than it is in Windows.
With the newer video cards drivers(like Detonator 20.xx all the way to the new Det 50.xx drivers) for Windows you can't even put anisotropic filtering in bi-linear mode. Point-sprite rendering is the lowest you can go in Windows anymore. Point sprite rendering is slower than Bi-Linear but looks a little better....16tap and above blows point sprites and bi-linear out of the water when it comes to image quality.
Anyways, OpenGL has the same performance capabilities accross any platform(because it remains unchanged no matter what platform you use it on). How fast it runs depends on your hardware and in Windows OGL speed depends on how you have the video driver configured(since Windows drivers get all of the cool visual enhancement capabilites).
I think I'd rather play Quake III w/64-tap anisotropic filtering and 4x or better Anti-alasing @ 140FPS over running it with no FSAA and low LOD anisotropic filter@ 350+ FPS anyday.
[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
By the way viper, ive never heard of the extreme edition P4. Is it out yet? Is it the response from intel to the athlon64?
-
quote:
Originally posted by ThePreacher:
By the way viper, ive never heard of the extreme edition P4. Is it out yet? Is it the response from intel to the athlon64?
The Extreme Edition is a P4c 800mhz FSB w/Hyperthreading w/2MB of cache instead of the traditional 512kb of cache on all other Northwoods.
It was made to fill the gap between the AthlonFX and the P4 until the Prescott is released.
Yes, the P4EE is available now and will work in any motherboard that supports the P4c.
Realistically, not many people are not going to buy a P4EE just like not many people are going to buy an Athlon FX due to the ridiculously high price for the performance that it has to offer.
Anybody with common sense will buy something like a 2.4c and a i865PE w/PAT enabled motherboard for $300 and overclock it to 3.1-3.2ghz. That is more than fast enough for what most people need out their computer. The P4 2.4c and i865 Combo is even $150-$175 cheaper than an Athlon 64(non-FX) CPU alone. The price-performance award clearly goes to the 2.4c+i865PE. Intel really outdid themselves with the 2.4c and the i865 chipset...literally.
-
Hey Viper,
the G5 IS faster than any PIV, and indeed faster than any comp on the market. The tests Apple did were fair, and openly published. When they were contested by various detractors, Apple offered to do their test, and guess what! Those tests came out worse!!
As it turned out, Apple had chosen the best test available. For example, some folks complained that because they used gcc for both systems tor un the compile tests, that someone was getting screwd, (hyperthreading was off on the PIV), it turned out P4 was slower when they turned on Hyperthreading.
The article is old, it's in the register when the hoolabaloo started. Get a clue, Apple wiped the floor shinny with your pathetic x86 frankenboxes. Why else do you think the Navy, Virginia Tech, amongst others, are now building G5 superclusters that trounce any pice of crap winshit box.
Finaly, as far as Quake3 Goes, has anyone actually noticed what kind of Vid card was used!!! For gods sake, everyone knows it's your vidcard over the mobo.
So shut up, and go suck on your x86 nuttbag all you want.
(ahhh... felt like flamin (http://smile.gif) )
-
Oh yeah. It is fair for Apple to test a G5 with all of it's optimizations but test the P4 without SSE2.
Riiiiggghhtt. :rolleyes:
-
quote:
Originally posted by Viper:
Oh yeah. It is fair for Apple to test a G5 with all of it's optimizations but test the P4 without SSE2.
Riiiiggghhtt. :rolleyes:
The testing wasn't done in-house first off, and at the time of testing I don't thing the extreme existed, but I hardly doubt if that would make much of a dent considering the overal remarkable performance of the G5. Not to mention that it's due for a 3ghz speedboost by the end of the year.
Don't forget, IBM is backing apple here, that's like a freight traing pushing a baby carrige or something equally powerfull :D
-
This is interesting.
Here's a complete normalized PS7Bench results list.
quote:
2x 2000 G5 OSX 10.2.7 555 (energy settings highest perf)
2x 2000 G5 OSX 10.2.7 497 (energy settings auto bus slewing)
2x 3060 Xeon (no L3) HT enabled 490
2x 3060 Xeon (OC'd 2400) 488
2x 2930 Xeon (OC'd 2400) 471
3200 P4 (800MHz) 427
3000 P4 (800MHz) 405
3495 P4 (OC'd 3.06) 386
3060 P4 XP Pro (533 FSB) 358 HT
2x 2200 Xeon PC 800 RDRAM CPQ Evo 357 HT
2x 3000+Athlon (2166) 355 (provisional Utwig)
2x 1500 G4 (OC'd 1420) 348
2x 1333 G4 DDR OS9.2 (oc'd 1.25) 346
1800 G5 OSX 10.2.7w/G5plugin 344 (energy settings highest perf)
2x 1420 G4 OSX 10.2.4 338
2x 2400+Athlon MP 338
2x 1250 G4 OS 9.2.2j 337
3200+Athlon XP 332
1800 Opteron(dual-chnlDDR 333) 332
2x 1333 G4 DDR OSX10.2.2(oc 1.25) 326
1800 OPteron(singl-chnlDDR333) 320
3000+Athlon XP 318
2x 1250 G4 OSX 10.2.5 318
2x 1250 G4 DDR OSX 10.2.1 316
2x 1800 Athlon MP 312
2800+Athlon XP Barton 298
2x 2000 P4 Xeon 286
2x 1200 G4Powerlogix(867MHzG4/QS) 285 upgraded
2x 1533 Athlon MP 285
2x 1533 Athlon MP 283
2530 P4 mobile (OC'd 1400) 282
2700 P4B (OC 2400, 600 MHz FSB)280
2x 1466 Athlon XP 279
1600 G5 OSX 10.2.7w/G5 Plugin 276 *MacNNscores (energy settings on auto)
2666 P4 (DDR 333) 269
2x 1000 G4 DDR 10.2 267
2400+Athlon XP 262
2x 1000 G4 OS9 260
2x 1000 G4 OSX 10.1.5 254
2400+Athlon 252
2400 P4B (800MHz) 251
2400b (sis 648 DDR400) 251
1600 Centrino IBM T40 250
2400 P4 (533MHz bus) 249
2400 P4 B 241
2340 P4 (overclock) 239
1600 Centrino Dell D800 236
2400 P4 234
1800+Athlon XP (1533 MHz) 226
1577 oc'd Athlon XP (Lestat) 221
2x 1000 G4 OSX 10.2.2 (upgraded) 218 ?!(dual 533 logic board)
1548 Athlon XP 214
1670 Athlon XP (2000+) 213
1667 Athlon XP 211
1400 Athlon XP 1600+ xp pro 200
1x 1533 Athlon MP 197
1300 Centrino Sony VAIO Z1A 196
1000 G4 17" Powrbk OSX 10.2.6 196
2000 P4 Xeon 194
1400 Athlon XP 1600+'98SE 191
1000 G4 OSX TiPbk 10.2.2 185
2x 533 G4 OSX 10.1.5 175
2x 533 G4 OS 9.2.2 174
1800 P4 173
1200 AthlonMP 168
1508 Celeron (overclock) 167
1400 PIII Tualatin 160 **?
2x 550 G4 OSX 10.2.3 (OC Cube) 160 **?
2x 500 G4 OSX 152
2x 450 G4 OS9 151
1333 Athlon TBird 147
2x 450 G4 OSX 10.1.5 143
800 G4 Pbook OSX 1MB L3 135
733 G4 (miro7) 134
667 G4 PBk OS9 noL3 127
667 G4 PBk OSX 10.2.3 no L3 125
466 G4 OS9 123
667 G4 OSX TiPBk 10.1.5 noL3 121
866 PIII 114
466 G4 OSX 133 MHz bus 112
550 G4 Powrbk OS9* 104
500 G4 Pbook (OC'd 400) 103
1x 450 G4 OSX 100 MHz bus 101
1000 Athlon TBird (PS6.01) 100
550 G4 Powrbk OSX* 95
933 Transmeta Crusoe Sony 78
700 G3 iBook 74
600 G3 iBook OS 9.2.2j 70
233 PII 30
Now, to get an idea of overall performance let's compare some more benchmark results between the platforms.
First let's start with the benchmarks C't magazine ran in a recent issue (all the systems are using a Radeon 9600). They used the G5 optimized version of Cinebench which isn
-
I was under the impression that in GL got accelerated through DirectX in version 9.
I officially retract my claim. I was mistaken as to their 3D architecture! :eek:
As for what I said about Linux... no, for what I do (audio recording/editing with realtime effects) Linux can't do it. It's not because of the OS, but because of the rather poor, inconsistant implementation of sound drivers.
And lack of apps for high end recording and editing.
I'm sorry. I don't come and flame you out when you say something negative about Mac OS. Linux isn't cut out for media production (although I was just informed that video editing is quite good). It can't do it all... audio isn't that easy.
I'm sorry... it just isn't. does that make you sad? :(
[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Jimmy the Shyster ]
-
I'm going to throw this in the mix as well.
Here are some Lightwave 7.5 scores from AnandTech and PCMagazine that show some Single Processor PCs versus a Dual G5:
quote:
Rad. Ref. Scene
P4 EE 3.2GHz 42.5 sec
P4 3.2C 46.0 sec
P4 3.0C 48.4 sec
Athlon 64 FX 51 2.2GHz 49.3 sec
Athlon 64 2.2GHz 50.6 sec
Dual G5 2GHz 51.1 sec
Athlon 64 3200+ 54.5 sec
Raytrace Scene
Athlon 64 FX 51 2.2GHz 87.9 sec
Athlon 64 2.2GHz 88.3 sec
P4 EE 3.2GHz 89.3 sec
P4 3.2C 93.1 sec
Athlon 64 2.2GHz 96.4 sec
P4 3.0C 99.1 sec
Dual G5 2GHz 112.0 sec
-
If you think running a couple of video games, and an unspecified rendertest is the gamut of rigorus testing, you sir are an idiot. Notice, that it's a 1.8G5 against a 3Ghz P!V in the latter tests and in teh first tests were they use 2 Ghz dual G5's you, naturaly, get better performance. The 1.8 is out by a hair.
Of course this is irelivant, because here you are dealing with software optimization issues, run some apps well optomized for both platforms and you get a diffrent story, likewise run the stander floating point, integer tests, and you get a diffrent story.
Apple has done their part in making the computers faster, now the ball is in the developers court to start optomizing their shit.
WOW! Sorry Viper, That was a major mistake! I hit the edit button instead of the reply button. Please correct your post above. heh... perils of having Admin privaleges (http://smile.gif)
[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax ]
-
I don't appreciate you editing my post Psyjax. Those tests were not gaming benchmarks. They were Cinebench scores. Cinebench tests the true performance of a CPU. You edited my post because the x86 rigs own the G5. In most cases a 2x G5 can't even beat a 1x3.2ghz P4.
Don't edit my posts asshole.
(EDIT) I see it was a mistake. My bad. Sorry for calling you an asshole. (http://tongue.gif)
[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Viper:
Don't edit my posts asshole.
I told you, it was an accident, you don't need to call me an asshole cunt wad (http://tongue.gif)
EDIT: applogy accepted :D
[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax ]
-
Post re-edited
-
quote:
Originally posted by Viper:
Post re-edited
Well, at this point, it's a war about one guys word again'st the other. Cinebench marks the Intel faster, and SPEC marks the G5 faster.
Whichever you choose to belive, I think you will note that very rarely does the Xeon rate significantly faster than the G5. And if Apple makes good on it's promiss for a 3Ghz by the end of the year, not to mention better (64Bit) optimization by developers, the speed issue will be moot.
On another point, you may notice that the G5's are actually very well priced compared to PC's in the same range. So you must admit, that if anythin, the G5 is a comparable, and competative product.
Personaly, I trust the SPEC marks (http://tongue.gif)
-
Oh the SPEC marks are real for the G5. However, the SPEC marks that Apple lists for the P4 are not accurate. In reality a 3.2ghz P4 w/Dual Channel DDR400 scores well over 1,200 Spec marks(Apple listed it in the 700-800 mark range). The G5 if I remember right was in the high 800 to low 900 range according to Apples benchmarks. That means that the P4 in normal conditions actually outperforms the G5 in highly optimized conditions(just like how the P4 does alot better in Quake III than Apple wants people to think).
The G5 is a competitive product, but it is not the best nor the fastest.
[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
Here are accurate Spec scores.
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q3/ (http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q3/)
As you can see, the P4 does much better than what Apple claims. The P4 does better than the G5(I'm sure you all have already seen the G5 results at their best@apples' web site). Apple lies, end of story.
(EDIT)So The highest end P4 outperforms the highest end G5 in everything but Photoshop in the real-world. I can really say that doesn't surprise me at all.
[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
Here is the register article on the G5 benchmarks:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/32498.html (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/32498.html)
At the bottom you will find an article arguing about Apple's version of the SPEC scores, which are well defended in the following article:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/31416.html (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/31416.html)
Infact, Apple's benchmarks are on the concervative end. They are lower than the G5 chip in other tests. So, saying the x86 performed 1200, isn't taking into account the methodology of the test.
As we all know, tests are never 100 percent, and you can allways weigh the data one way or another, but by all accounts apple did a fair test, and their results are acurate. Again, see the above articles.
-
Really, I don't believe for a minute that Apple did a fair test simply because of their published results for Quake III on a Pentium 4. Everybody knows that a Pentium 4 scores way higher than what Apple posted in Quake III.
Disabling SSE2 optimizations on the P4 and leaving G5 optimizations enabled is not fair testing. When you test a CPU you test it with everything it has to offer.
If you want to disable optimizations for 1 CPU you have to disable the optimizations on the other CPU for it to be considered a fair test.
Nonetheless, Every benchmark aside from Apples' benchmarks shows that the P4 is indeed faster than what Apple claims and is indeed faster than the G5 in everything but Photoshop. Apples' CPU's have always excelled@photoshop(even the G3's).
Apple can not fool me because I know better than to trust hardware manufacturers' benchmarks. They all lie, Apple is no different.
The G5 is indeed competitive, I won't hesitate to admit that, but it simply does not have x86 beat. The Prescott is right around the corner as well. Next year we will be seeing the Tejas(Pentium V). IBM is going to have to do some major work to their CPU's if they want them to remain competitve to the Athlon FX, Pentium 4 Prescott and the upcoming Pentium V. If they don't Apple will be left in the dust in terms of performance once again(like how the P4/Athlon XP left the G4's in the dust as they got faster and faster).
-
quote:
Really, I don't believe for a minute that Apple did a fair test simply because of their published results for Quake III on a Pentium 4. Everybody knows that a Pentium 4 scores way higher than what Apple posted in Quake III.
As of now it doesn't really matter if the pentium 4 is faster than the dual G5. The G5 can make use of twice as much memory as the Pentium 4.
On top of that, with Suns new chip technology on the horizon I don't think Pentium 4's have much of a future in anything.
Not that I'm biased to anyone. But I'm convinced that for price/performance right now the best cpu on the market is the Athlon 2200.
And if your some poor farmer that lives in Ecuador. Your most likely going to get a nice 1.3 ghz Duron.
Intel has no future. Theyre pushing the clockspeed on those P4's as much as they can.
And as for the G5 ? Well what makes the G5 better than the Pentium 4 isn't how well it can run Quake 3 but how well it can run OS X.
-
You don't get it man. This isn't about Quake III. The main reason why I beleive SPEC results published on SPEC's page for the P4 over Apples' SPEC results posted for a P4 is because 1. SPEC doesn't post biased results and 2. Apple clearly lied about the P4's Quake III performance(if hey are going to lie about 1 thing they are going to lie about everything). It isn't about how fast the P4 runs Quake III, it is about Apple lying about it's true performance. Please understand that. Please understand that SPEC in no way has anything to do with Quake III. Furthermore, the P4 is faster at Lightwave, Cinebench(a CPU intensive benchmark), UT2k3, etc.
Actually, the AXP 2500+ Barton offers the best price/performance ration in the AMD camp. Nothing in the AMD camp can beat the P4 2.4c ghz's price/performance ratio though. That chip is a little more expensive than the Athlon 2500+ Barton(it is $170) but it can be overclocked to 3.2ghz with stock air-cooling with no hitch. In the end, you get a high-end chip for the price of a budget level chip. I think I'd rather spend $300 on a P4 2.4c and a good i865 motherboard for it and run it @ 3.2ghz(which beats out an Athlon XP 3200+ with no trouble at all) than spend about $200 on a Athlon 2200+(like you suggested) and a decent motherboard for it and only have it able to overclock to a little over 2300+ specs.
The speed potential differnce between what you suggested and that p4 2.4c is worth the extra $100. $300 for 3.2ghz w/800mhz FSB and Hyperthreading is a steal...it really is.
[ September 29, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
i like milk : :confused:
-
quote:
Originally posted by Viper:
The speed potential differnce between what you suggested and that p4 2.4c is worth the extra $100. $300 for 3.2ghz w/800mhz FSB and Hyperthreading is a steal...it really is.
[ September 29, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
Meh, I'd rather spend my money, on a dual 2Ghz (better yet dual 3Ghz at christmass) with 1Ghz FSB, and 8GB of 400Mhz DDR RAM.
-
It's funny how you mention the 1ghz FSB. An overclocked P4 [email protected] - 3.2ghz runs a FSB that is effectively over 1ghz.
CPU @ 3.12ghz
Quad pumped 260mhz FSB = 4x260mhz = 1040mhz FSB
CPU @ 3.19ghz
Quad Pumped 265mhz FSB = 4x265mhz = 1060mhz FSB
One time I really pushed my stock air cooling and got the CPU to near 3.3ghz and it was effectivley running on a 1.1ghz FSB.
So a 1ghz FSB isn't really impressive to me. ;P
Granted, the current P4's can't address over 4GB of Ram because that is the limit of the 32-bit architecture. The Prescott and the Tejas will solve that problem though. Honestly, not many people even use 4GB of Ram let alone over 4GB. The people who do are likely to own something like an Itanium 2 anyways(A high-end 64-bit Server chip). 4GB of Ram on a desktop is literally overkill.
[ September 29, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
quote:
but it can be overclocked to 3.2ghz with stock air-cooling with no hitch.
YOur only thinking as if it were you yourself using the machine. YOur always talking about how you can overclock processors and what not. What you don't get is that businesses and universities don't have time to over clock all of their hundreds of PC's just to get a better performance for their price. Besides price and performance are defined in so many ways. Price isn't just how much money you pay to get the machine to your house. And performance isn't just how much number crunching a CPU can pull off.
I think thats why Virginia Tech is using the G5's for their supercomputer cluster. I'm betting software was a big issue with it also.
-
I still think the RISC vs CISC argument comes down to efficiency over power.
the RISC concept goes for efficient execution of simple code. CISC goes for breakneck execution of relatively complex code.
In the end, RISC, running at a slower clock is keeping up with CISC running at drastically higher clocks, but it's still easier for CISC to pull away than it is for RISC to keep up, for some reason.
No way is better, they're just different means of reaching the same end
-
http://www6.tomshardware.com/howto/20020531/windows_gaming-04.html (http://www6.tomshardware.com/howto/20020531/windows_gaming-04.html)
Im not sure what settings were used on this test, so it might be as you said, however my point is that linux can play games and play them well.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy the Shyster:
I was under the impression that in GL got accelerated through DirectX in version 9.
I officially retract my claim. I was mistaken as to their 3D architecture! :eek:
As for what I said about Linux... no, for what I do (audio recording/editing with realtime effects) Linux can't do it. It's not because of the OS, but because of the rather poor, inconsistant implementation of sound drivers.
And lack of apps for high end recording and editing.
I'm sorry. I don't come and flame you out when you say something negative about Mac OS. Linux isn't cut out for media production (although I was just informed that video editing is quite good). It can't do it all... audio isn't that easy.
I'm sorry... it just isn't. does that make you sad? :(
[ September 28, 2003: Message edited by: Jimmy the Shyster ]
Listen, Im sorry, I become too emotional about this linux thing. To each his own. Anyway I have to agree with Viper here. Those Apple Benchmarks are fishy. I want to see Toms Hardware, or PC magazine, or someone unbiased do a true comparison. I see Apple gaming benchmarks and they always outperform a P4, but I look at the frames per second the P4 was doing, and it is 200 fps less than it usually does. If this isnt odd I dont know what is.
Apple has yet to convince me that their pc is the fastest as they claim. My question for you mac guys is, where are the Dual G5 computers? I havent seen them at the stores. Is Apple not releasing them? I would like a test of the retail version of this pc to be done. I mean the version that people like us will buy, not the version that Apple Optimized to get high scores on a benchmarks.
[ September 30, 2003: Message edited by: ThePreacher ]
-
my mummy makes me toasted sandwiches wiff chicken and cheese
-
the dual g5s were delayed a bit so that they sent them out to the schools first
-
I have seen and used the dual 2GHz G5. one was on display at the local Apple retailer. the owner special ordered it and it arrived days ago.
it's pretty fast. I can't vouch for any firm numbers, but she's a quick one.
Preacher, I'm not gonna hold it against ya. I've come over as really overzealous many times, and I can really be a dick. I apologize for that little remark in my last post. It was outta line. I still don't see Linux as being good for media production. I hear good things about VideoGIMP, but I haven't tried it. It sounds really nice, but I wanna get hands on with it! Linux still doesn't have the capabilities or the software for audio production, though.
-
I understand your point of view, and I apologize again. Linux isnt the swiss army knife of operating systems yet. There is always room for improvement.
-
quote:
. Linux isnt the swiss army knife of operating systems yet.
But soon. It holds the most potential for reaching that level of development.