Slashdot Mirror
Apple's G5 Speeds Challenged
An anonymous reader was the first of a seemingly infinite stream of people to submit a URL to an argument that makes the case that the G5 isn't quite what Apple wants you to think of it. The evidence? Apple's own press material. Worth a read.
While the methods Apple used may not have been in the best of intentions and possibly missleading, this just underscores the greater difficulties of benchmarking across platforms, specifically processor architectures. The playing field will never really be level using SPEC. The only way to truly determine which machines are "faster" is at the application level, where real work is done.
Apple is always a little sketchy when it comes to speed measurements. I can't count how many questionable run-offs Steve Jobs has demonstrated during his keynotes.
They're always a little suspect. I love Apple as much as anyone, but their talk of the megahertz myth and the amazing clock cycle of the G4/G5 and the biased tests they use are starting to sound a little shrill. Apple needs to admit that their machines aren't as fast as the fastest Intel has to offer. They're much cleaner and much more elegant, though, and that's why they're in the market. That's what they should stress, since it actually attracts customers -- rather than THE NEED FOR SPEED.
YOUR HOME TOWN (AP) -- You were not "the most handsome boy in school," contrary to what your mother may have said at the time, officials today announced.
... no shiat! Apple marketing spins things; Dell marketing spins things ... everyone spins. Don't take it so seriously.
"Mothers always say things like that to their gangly, awkward teenage children," one official said on condition of anonymity.
----
Point is
Mindy: "Well...desserts aren't always right." Homer: "But they're so sweet!"
Well, it certainly isn't the first time that a company has used a benchmark to make a product look better than it is, and it certainly won't be the last time. I think what we should all learn from this is as follows. Don't worry about Statistics, Benchmarks, or any Media Hype. Just go to the store, buy whatever kind of computer you want that floats ur boat, Be it a Mac, Linux Box, Windoze Box, or god forbid, a compaq. Set it up, get broadband internet, and read lots of Slashdot and play Starcraft.
I have no regrets, this is the only path.
My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"
I mean computers are so fast that there's very little that I might want to do at a consumer level that makes a difference. Most applications are responsive on my ancient 500MHz Pentium 3.
The only things that really need speed are things like 3d rendering, video compression and compiling large appllications. 3D rendering in games is influenced by the speed of the graphics card a lot more than the speed of the CPU, so we're left with the long slow scenes. Personally, it makes very little difference to me if a rendering a scene or compressing a video takes 30 minutes rather than 40. If I can kill 30 minutes, I can kill another 10 quite easily.
In the past, I'd have been able to tell you whether I was using a 20MHz or a 25Mhz 386 just by using it. I can hardly detect the difference between a 1.5GHz machine and a 3.0GHz machine without using a benchmark.
In the end, it's just numbers.
> They're giving us a desktop UNIX running on 64-bit hardware, what else can you ask for? sheesh
Who wants 64-bit for 64-bit's sake? I want fast, cheap computation. I'd be happy with an 8-bit computer if it gave sufficient bang for the buck.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
And what's more, when you start running programs that use more than 2GB of data, the 64-bit machine is going to beat the pants off the 32-bit one, since the 32-bit machine (i.e. intel) is going to have to resort to slow and hacky solutions such as segments and paging. The intel may me "faster" but only as long as 32-bit are enough for you. The days of 32-bit machines are numbered, just as they were for 16-bit machines when 32-bit machines started to appear.
Stick Men
> He MAY have valid points but his credibility is zero.
That claim really doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense.
If his points "MAY" be valid, then is credibility is not zero.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
It is unfair to summarize it that way. It's more like, "man examining available evidence" vs. "trolls with no evidence." Why is it trolling to show that Apple's benchmarks are wildly misleading? Would it also be trolling if I, say, posted to Slashdot evidence that nVidia was scamming certain graphic benchmarks?
Hell, how is this different from when Microsoft posted benchmarks about web server throughput on Windows vs. Linux? Then, all Slashdot was up in arms that Microsoft had heavily tweaked its Windows set up but left the Linux box plain vanilla. Why is it that when Apple does the same thing so many of us say "It's an Anti-Apple Troll"?
Jesus, the guy even says that there are things that he likes Mac for. How does that make him a troll?
If you're talking about this (section entitled "Apple Copies Ideas From Microsoft") then you'll find that he admits that Microsoft copies stuff from Apple, but that Apple have copied things from Microsoft too. Which wouldn't seem a too unreasonable claim.
If you're going to claim someone is a troll, the least you could do is give us an example which isn't guaranteed to mislead us.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Are you going to deny that Apple cheated at the benchmarks by disabling various optimizations on the competition? Are you going to deny that most software uses integer math, as one "software coder" clearly did (hint: i write a lot of software, and integer math practically always dominates)?
The guy may, or may not be a troll. However, the sheer amount hate mail, and the level of it, was stunning. What kind of people write stuff like that? Very few of them even attempted to address the guys points, and those that did made a hash job of it (nobody uses int math? wtf?).
The fact is that anybody outside the Mac community, having read that essay, is going to come away with a bad impression of said community. Nobody deserves to get hate mail like that for pointing out the other side of the statistics.
Benchmarks aren't what sells apples and price certianly isn't the drawing point. People use macs because they like macs. Hence why the mac market doesn't increase that much, they're too pricey and don't act like a PC. Granted as a user who uses windows, linux, and Mac OS, and all the subvarients between I can tell you that there are perks to all the operating systems. But as far as hardware goes x86 wins hands down.
Why is x86 better than apple? Simple, they're more tweakable, upgradeable, provide more selections, and are used by more people. Apple makes up for the "not used by many people" by making every mac an exact clone of another. Hence why when you get a file for a mac to be installed you just drop a binary in, every mac is the same (to an extent), whereas every PC is not, but the components are the same some just perform better than others.
Apple's prices are outrageous, and let me get into it a little more. A first time computer buyer is wary of a computer. They don't want to invest a whole lot of money in something they don't know if they're going to be able to use. But for $600 they can have a pretty decent machine that plays most every x86 game out there and runs most every x86 OS out there with little or no trouble. For $600 you might be able to score an old iMac. That old iMac MIGHT be able to run Mac OS 10.2, but it's going to be hella slow and not be able to do half the things the same priced PC will be able to do.
People who buy computers are looking for the most they can get with the least amount of money. Most people's computers are still beige. Most peoples computers have all the same applications. And Most people rely on somoene other than themselves for computer help, hence more PC's more help available.
I like OS X (especially with a two button mouse). I like linux (especially when everything works right). And I like windows (especially when XP loads correctly and doesn't crash and doesn't require me to kill processes in the task manager all the time to get some of my memory back).
All of these systems have their perks and they all have a place in the market, just they all want more of a place in the market, hence the competition. If Apple wanted to procreate so much they'd come up with a bargain computer other than the eMac or iMac. Something that has the ability to be upgraded (even if the user never wants to) and has the ability to run popular programs, hence MS, hey MS if I buy a copy of Word I want to be able to install it on either my PC or my Mac, I don't want to have to buy two different copies.
Anyways, these computers will be blasted out of the water in no time when Intel and AMD roll out their 64-bit badboys. Remember the 970 is actually an older chip in comparison to the AMD and Intel varients. Granted x86 isn't exactly new ... but neither were the moto's.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
I had a desktop UNIX (Solaris) running on my desktop 64-bit hardware (Sun Blade 100) a couple of years ago.
Yeah, me too. But unlike the Mac, I could not run Office, Photoshop, function as a web server, surf the web, compile code, run bioinformatics searches, do molecular modeling and have wonderful text aliasing all at the same time. Now with OS X, I can do all this and network seemlessly with Wintel and UNIX machines while maintaining my sanity by only having one software library to keep up with and have one system on my desk instead of three. Oh, and when I am on the road (like now on the other side of the country), I can take all of this with me by using a Powerbook.
No other company has been able to give me these tools, and for that.....I have to say, "Thank you Apple Computer".
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Believe it or not, some of us want both a desktop UNIX on 64 bit hardware AND legitimate benchmarks. I don't see why one excuses the other.
Listen, Apple made a good product because they needed to stay in business. They didn't do it out of the good of their hearts. And their good product in no way changes the fact that I don't appreciate being lied to by corporations.
Don't get me wrong, this is not the world's biggest lie or corporate misdeed. I don't put much faith in benchmarks anyway, and I wouldn't make my decision between a Mac or a PC based on them (although for others the specs might be more important). But it's still sleazy. And it's very unfair to act like it's "ungrateful" or "trollish" to demand that Apple set up legitimate benchmarking tests.
Everyone knows that any hardware/software manufacturer will "fudge" the benchmarks a bit.
That's true. But on the other hand, every hardware manufacturer doesn't get lead stories on Slashdot AND CNN (it's still on the front page as I post this, but yesterday it was one of the lead stories too) about how they've introduced the world's fastest personal computer. A misleading claim like that - debunked even before anyone gets their hands on their computer, just by reading the testing setup - deserves to be debunked, and is not simply a flamewar invitation.
there is a bit of a bias there. He complains about Apple tweaking its benchmarks. I have no problem with that. Companies should get blasted for running bogus benchmarks. But then he compares Apple's results to Dell's and AMD's without questioning their tweaks.
Perhaps what he meant to say is: "If we are going to use bogus benchmarks, let's compare them to the bogus ones from the competition."
I thought everyone copied from Xerox.
There is only one rule --- WIN.
I have worked for six different computer companies over the years. All they ever wanted to do was win ONE test. This is so the literature and marketing droids could focus on that test showing that we had the faster computer in the known universe.
At one place there was a choice. We could have a C compiler that either ran the customers work faster OR gave better spec marks. I don't have to tell you which one management picked.
The results are never that useful. Each manufacturer runs their soon-to-be-released hardware and software against the competition's already released product. It is always unfair. Everyone in the industry knows that and no one really cares.
Apple now has a machine that stands up to the best for performance. Recognize that and move on. Because next month someone else will have another machine that gives "better" numbers. The only thing any of us care about is -- is it fast enough for what I want to do?
I think it's fair to say pretty much every single chip maker does whatever they possibly can to skew their results. It's what happens when we let the marketing droids control corporate policy and direction.
I think it's pretty obvious Apple did that here, but I'll still use my Mac's anyway. No, I am not a Mac zealot who thinks that Intel or Gates, or whoever it is that day is the devil. I have a PC too. I enjoy building them. I just use my Mac for most things because I'm more comfortable with it. Bad marketing won't turn me off from a product - because then I'd never buy anything! Which actually might be a good thing....
In a row???
Actually.... He has a good point. People think that things are cheaper if they see a lower number in it. IE something for $1.99 will sell better than something for $2.00. It is because they think they are getting something for cheaper.
Companies have been doing this for years and its been working flawlessly.
First off, yesterday we have the day when all the Mac fanatics go overboard. Hey, I'm one of them and I went overboard. Enthusiasm goes right over the top and reality slowly slips away inside the Reality Distortion Field of the great and mighty Jobs. Yesterday was for the Mac users
Today we get the backlash and debunking. I honestly don't know if it's completely true or not but I'm inclined to believe it. I've grown accustomed to the idea that benchmarks and anything else like them (side by side tests of any kind) can't be trusted so this seems to fit.
The only thing that really makes any difference to me personally is how much faster the G5 is than the G4 it's replacing. The rest of it I just don't care about.
I use a Mac for a lot of reasons and flat out speed isn't one of them. It has to be fast enough obviously but it doesn't have to be the fastest and never has had to be the fastest.
I use a Mac because I have found it to be very stable and a pleasure to work and game on. If the benchmarks were rigged then it's a shame. They didn't need to do it and it wasn't worth the risk of negative press IMO.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
A. Benchmarking is a black art, and benchmark results more often than not bear little or no relation to reality (i.e. the actual performance you will get, today, running your particular workload). Talk to anyone who does it for a living and they are the first to admit that.
B. Benchmarks are very rarely impartial. Whoever is footing the not inconsiderable bill for a properly-done benchmark will have a result they want to see, and the benchmarkers can do a lot to make sure they do see it.
C. "Perception is reality" is a well-known saying in marketing. It doesn't actually matter whether the perception is correct. If Joe Sixpack believes he has bought the fastest PC in the world, he will be happy. More so since he most likely has nothing on hand to compare it to.
D. The speed this industry moves at, there will be a faster one along in a month or less, so if you really want something faster, wait for it.
E. All this debating about which is faster is more like masturbating. And "Masturbation, although an inherently pointless way to pass time, is at least enjoyable. Comparing PC performance is equally pointless, but rather less fun. The conventional epithet applied to those who engage in the former to excess is equally applicable to those who persist in the latter."
That's true. However, those hundreds of backgrounds tasks are normally asleep. As an example, open up ten different desktop apps, run top or whatever and note that CPU usage is only a few percent. Those apps are blocking in an event loop, and until they receive events the kernel won't allocate them any timeslices.
Because of the way pre-emptive multitasking works however, having a dual CPU machine generally simply gives you more cycles to burn. You could get the same effect by buying a chip that's twice as fast - in fact, performance would be better as you don't have the overhead of the communication between the two CPUs.
So, this is useful if you spend a lot of your time doing very processor intensive things, because adding extra CPUs is generally easier than finding chips double the current speed of what you're using (assuming you're already on the cutting edge).
But, for most desktop users, it wouldn't make any difference, because no matter how many apps they have open, only a few of them will actually be doing any processing at any given time.
>Who wants 64-bit for 64-bit's sake? I want fast, cheap computation. I'd be happy with an 8-bit computer if it gave sufficient bang for the buck.
Heck. perhaps you don't wan't to consider a possibility of running out of VIRTUAL address space,perhaps programmer who intends to continue selling their product in next year starts worrying it today. Perhaps the guys who complain that they run out of memory all the time buy it. Or guys who do troublesome hacks to have their program run with more than 2gig of data. 64 bit is convenience for programmers, and it gives performance boost where it counts for apples target market. People don't buy power Mac's primary for 3D shooters, nor office productivity apps nor RTS. Their primary market is image editing, and when your image is over 500MB in size and program wan't to have temporary copies of it and other temporary structures that are function of image size you start up having troubles with 32bit address space. Oh wait you just didn't realize that macs are used to edit something that goes to high resolution PAPER. 64 bit is BIG issue for some people while its not issue for majority, Apples target market happen to be those with big issues related to that.
64bit desktop is just neat, but its the business users that need truckloads of RAM.
BTW: 8 bit computer could store upto 64kb of stuff with address space extension (16bit) normally, so you would be screwed up badly no matter how many THz it would run, the amount of bang doesn't matter if your problem is too large for it to solve, for instance edit 300*400*8 sized image, or compile linux sources or... Oh wait even if it would be the fastest computer on planed doing stuff that fits in the 64kb area it would suck on things that don't. And there are businesses which have similar problems with 32bit these days.
Image editing, 3D rendering(no not games), business databases, simulations, and...
Sure thats not apps that average slashdotter would use but those do exist and Apple does fine for those.
Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
Ok, ok, if you use both processors on an integer task, continuing to ignore floating point and bus performance, all you have to do is use a different benchmark on the Intel box to show the Intel box being a hair faster.
No comments on using the G5 on appropriate applications or application mixes.
Why rain on Apple's parade like that? They continue to do amazing work. The G5 appears to be dramatically faster than the competition in some perfectly realistic applications and at least comparable everywhere else.
The people giving this anti-Apple rant any credence seem not to have read it very carefully. It exemplifies exactly the sort of spin-doctoring that it claims to be offended by.
mt
According to the linked article though, Apple used different optimizations on each platform. Personally I'd like to see both platforms with all optimizations on, compiled with GCC. Not that this really means much anyways, and it does _not_ really simulate "real world" application performance because all you're running is the benchmark on a minimal system install.
Of the benchmarks displayed I'd believe the Photoshop and Mathematica ones to some extent. The emagic comparison seems a little fishy though. The composition on the PC didn't look all that complicated, it shouldn't have sputtered and died the way it did.
That said, I'm sure each of the current leading CPUs shows better performance in one area or another. I'm sure things suited for altivec optimization will be way faster on the G5, and things suited for raw integer performance will be faster on the P4.
In any case, we have a rather fast, 64 bit, UNIX-based machine, that exhibits excellent polished design both software and hardware wise. I for one am lusting after a Dual 2 GHz G5 with at least 1 GB of DDR RAM, and I can't wait to see how it performs with Panther.
However, speeds of processors asside, if you want the Mac, buy the Mac, if you want a Windows machine, buy a windows machine. If you don't want to pay either the Apple Tax or the Microsoft Tax, buy a machine without an operating system and install GNU/Linux or BSD.
Galium Arsenide is the material of the future, and always will be.
Okay, I did RTFA, and well, as boring and tedious as benchmark tests result analysis is to me, I generally glossed right over it. What I found to be the most compelling part of this article was the "hate mail" section at the bottom. I read each one, and came away scratching my head.
I simply do not understand how people can be so consumed with obvious hatred for another person debating COMPUTERS! Why do Mac users feel so threatened? Why do Linux users feel so threatened? Why do Microsoft users feel so threatened?
I've been using Macs (since 92), Windows (since 93) and Linux (since 96) and FreeBSD (since 96) for years and well, I have yet to find anything about these systems that demand that I stand up and scream at the top of my lungs how wonderful any of them are, and to attack with such spiteful hate those who don't just fall in line.
Having started out in the computer world as a designer, I used Macs. I like them, they are cute, and fun and make many things easy. They are also slow, crash a lot and the cause of a lot of frustration. I started using Windows (3.0) because I wanted a PC, but couldn't afford a Mac at the time. Windows was cool, it crashed a lot, and I had the hardest time trying to configure hardware with it, but I got the job done. I was introduced to Linux looking for a way to get up to speed with Unix. I had a hell of time first installing it, it was cool, seemed very powerful (I was in over my head) and never crashed. Same with FreeBSD. But I still have yet to understand the mindset required to say things like: "This guy is an idiot, and his article should be pulled and his email box should be flamed."
or:
"I can't believe the haxial web site is still up, you would think by now someone would have hacked it."
Good grief, what is WRONG with people???
A while back I chose Linux as my primary OS for my day-to-day computing, on an Intel chip. I love it, its fun, its cute (thanks KDE) and it hardly crashes, and low and behold, I get my work done. My girlfriend (she's a designer) has a few Macs. I like them, but, well, it doesn't feel right to me so I stick with Linux. Sure, we get into our little OSX vs. Linux debates, but it never gets down to where she threatens my life and I launch DoS attacks on her machine. They usually end as "we should all just go back to Amiga" or something like that.
I would love to ask someone who is so delluded in their thinking to feel real hatred for someone who simply prefers not to use the computer/os/whatever that they use, what exactly do they have to fear? Why the need to act like a savage? Is it just because they are posting in a message board, and well, its time to be macho, because its safe and anonymous, and well, the need to act the tough-guy just overwelms better judgement?
sad robot making broken music
Duh. Intel knows everything about Intel chips. They designed them.
Intel's ICC won't produce code nearly as good on AMDs, and won't produce anything on non x86.
Let's not go around talking about how gcc sucks because it doesn't -- and can't, and never will be able to, unless Intel opens up all of the specs -- compete with Intel's ICC.
GCC is designed to compile code on many different platforms, to unite development efforts as much as possible accross different CPU types.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
And how do you imagine Apple did that?
Eeeeuh, they might have just turned off the option 'Hyperthreading' in the BIOS. And yes it's there, I can know, I own a precision myself.
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
Apple has so THOROUGHLY cheated
Just because one guy posted an argument and used what facts he felt backed his claims, doesn't nearly support your statement. I think the only thing that EVER settles any of the damn benchmark arguments is real-world, side-by-side testing of applications people use every day.
It's long been known almost all types of benchmarks can be skewed, and cross-platform benching is a completely subjective science. This fuss is ridiculous. Let's wait until someone gets their hands on a box, and lets us know what it really is like.
It's only when we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything...
Well smart guy, if you bought a house and you were forced to buy an extra foundation that you didn't want and planned to rip up anyway, then you WOULD call it the foundation tax!
Little known fact, but it's true.
Do you have a cite? I don't believe it for a second. It doesn't take sales tax into consideration.
A $20 item, plus 6% sales tax, comes out to $21.20.
A $19.99 item, plus 6% sales tax, comes out to $21.19.
What are the chances a cashier would be able to provide exact change for either of those without opening the register?
Except that GCC for PPC and GCC for x86 are already different beasts. So it's no different. You simply change the test from "which chip is fastest with the GCC compiler for that chip" to "which chip is fastest with the manufacturer's compiler for that chip".
As I watch the keynote yesterday, I was dismayed by a couple of the claims Steve made. I use Macs, Wintel, and several "proprietary" Unix workstations heavily and am quite familiar with the advantages and disadvantages of each. That said, I am undeniably fond of my macs running OS X, and use my iBook 600 more than any of my other computers.
But when Steve introduced the new PowerMac G5 as the "worlds first 64 bit desktop personal computer" that tweaked me a bit. I've used 64-bit DEC, SGI, and Sun desktop systems for more than a decade. Don't flame me with the "PC vs Workstation" argument. Most of those Unix workstations were smaller than the G5. And yesterday's demos show Apple is undeniably targeting the same high end multimedia, graphics, software development and scientific markets.
But the SPEC benchmark claims set my BS senses tingling. I too checked out the Veritest results yesterday after Apple's claimed Intel SPEC results didn't jibe with the official published numbers for the same Dell 650. I was annoyed to read that the "independent" tester didn't attempt to maximize the results for all contestants. Granted Apple [probably] paid for the testing, but they should be outsource the evaluation for objectivity, not to have someone lie on their behalf.
It has been known for years that SPECmarks are an indication of CPU performance, but a poor predictor of overall system performance. There are several application benchmarks that are better indicators of performance for certain classes of applications (database, web serving, desktop applications, etc). Apple doesn't seem to publicize these, (other than the perennial Photoshop demo). If "honest" benchmarks don't support your marketing case, I believe it is better to remain silent than to deceive.
I do believe that the PowerMac G5 really will be a very strong contender in the high end desktop market. I do believe that the new PowerMac G5s are probably performance and price comparable to the high end 1st tier Intel boxes. I don't believe the old "macs cost %50 more" or the new "the G5 is $1000 less" arguments. I know from experience that when you kit out these things with the hardware and software needed to get real work done, the prices are comparable. I did say 1st tier manufacturers - not some OC'd LAN party generic white box that's been riced out with mercury cooling and neon.
However, for more than %80 of the work I do, my 600Mhz G3 iBook is more than sufficient. And it's easy to carry around. The other %20, however, pegs my PowerMac G4. It also pegs my Athlon 2200 box. I will probably replace the G4 within the year. The only question is: Dual 2Ghz G5 this fall, or Dual 3Ghz G5 next year?
It's been said a hundred time before; however, I'm going to say it again.... every other major PC and Semicondcutor manufacturer does this stuff.
:)
Intel says they have the fastest solutions, AMD says they have the fastest solutions, and Apple/IBM says they have the fastest solutions. People have been putting skewed test results on the web for years.
Honestly, I'm not going to take any of these benchmarks for real. I want to see a review from ARS Technica or John Carmack.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
The author claims the test is biased mostly because:
1. On x86 hyperthreading was disabled
2. on x86 SSE was disabled
3. on PPC a custom malloc was used
4. on PPC a different set of optimizations were used
1. I admit is seems odd that this was disabled. I think it's effect would be little, but it should be turned on
2. So was the PPC's AltiVec. I recall that SPEC wants FP and INT performance from the ALU sections, not SIMD
3. And I'm sure that there are many "tweaks" for x86 that are transparent within the GCC 3.3 code generators
4. Again, each CPU has different optimizations, either allow them all or disable them all - on both platforms, command line switched or embedded
What I think would be interesting for Apple to do to help settle all this (You know, spread around some of that $4B+ they have lying around):
Purchase two of the fastest model of 1st tier systems they can get that run on x86.
Using four different testing labs, send one machine to each lab (2 x86, 2 G5). Instruct each lab to perform any software/configuration optimizations they feel necessary to get the most performance out of the machine. Then they run a standardized set of benchmarks. They each fully document the changes they've made and the results.
Apple (or perhaps a 5th lab) colates the data and produces a final result.
Or some open source minded person with some extra bandwidth(ha) could create a web site where PCers and Macers could post their own results from the benchmarks. With sufficient results posted, the "noise" would get filtered out and the results would become statistically useful.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
I don't think I've ever seen a numerical benchmark that has been really satisfying. Cook-offs are really the way to go IMO, and Apple blew the Dell away with Photoshop, PDF viewing, and Mathematica. What should matter is how well your applications perform, not what arbitrary benchmark number you've managed to come up with.
It's amazing how much flaming the author received for his analysis. People were calling him all sorts of names simply for pointing out that Apple's benchmarks were not fair. I think it's important to keep companies honest.
But as is often said, the CPU processing speed isn't the main selling point of a Mac. They've been behind for quite some time now, but people are still buying them. This is a great advancement, bringing Macs up to speeds relatively comparable to that of the rest of the market. The 970 is a new chip, and IBM needs time to ramp up the clock speed. P4's didn't get to 3.2ghz in one day.
Well, if SPEC benefits from a "malloc that is sufficient to run the benchmark but not capable of running general applications and doesn't actually behave the way apps expect malloc to behave", then it fails as a benchmark supposedly being real-app(s) like.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
When I looked at the benchmarks as posted by VeriTest, and then read this article I thought, wow this guy is really worked up today. Apple produces a new machine using a very fast processor from IBM, they hire a independant firm called VeriTest to benchmark it, and they publish the full results, as well as their take on them in their marketing information. Whats the problem? We all know it is impossible to make a fair benchmark, and that the only real test is to use it for your application and see how it performs. I read the benchmark and thought it was less biased than about 80% of the ones I've seen. Could it have been better? Probably, but the nitpicking this guy goes into is a little extreme. You can tell he's really reaching when he starts to complain about the $1999 pricing as being deceptive, I mean come on already, this is done for just about every product sold in this wacko country. The photoshop test was all it took to sell me, since it is an app I actually use on a regular basis, and the tasks performed were real world, rather than theoretical. The only real question for me (and many others I know) is, when can I get one in a powerbook?