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.
...and benchmark different too!
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Not to mention a FRESH LOOKING desktop UNIX running on 64-bit hardware.
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
translation
i am too stupid to round up.
Are you MORE than your SPINAL COLUMN?
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.
OMG, you mean benchmarks are subjective? Marketing execs get a hard on the size of Georgia when they hear the term "benchmark." Let us all hope and pray AMD and Intel don't hear about this, lest we never be able to trust an ad campaign again!
The author of this little essay is a known troll in the Mac community. His previous essay made sure to bash Apple for copying the original windows GUI for the Mac(!).
This guy is a known troll. He MAY have valid points but his credibility is zero.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
Lets hope we can look at some independent tests in the coming days and see which unit is really value for money, because if Dell's benchmarks are correct their unit is 20-30% faster and only 2/3rds the price.
Economic Left/Right: -0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
He had me thinking he was insightful and thoughtful until the end where he replies to all of his hate mail individually. Woulda made his point better if he just left it alone.
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
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.
Ultimately, it will be interesting to see the real world performance of the G5. I own a 2100+ amd athlon, but I don't feel much of a speed increase from my old 1 Ghz. As usual, a processor is only one part of a computer's performance, and the 1Ghz bus that the G5 will use will greatly contribute to the percieved speed of the system. Also, the interaction with OS X will be important. I use a G4 powerbook running jaguar, but occassionally there are slow downs - not sure why.
I watched the video. (http://stream.apple.akadns.net/ - requires QuickTime). Now, I'm sure there's many ways you could tweak the benchmarks and so forth but the Photoshop and Mathematica benchmarks rocked. The G5 was 2x faster than the Xeon.
I used to get involved doing benchmarking back in the good old days of Whetstone when I worked on supercomputers. Every manufacturer had a different nasty tweak to the compilers that were pulled out only when it was time to do benchmarks for a customer. The mantra then as now was: the best benchmark is the app you want to run (since most buyers of supercomputers write their own apps, porting them for a benchmark was a possibility).
The G5's may not be the hottest thing on the planet but they're close enough to get Apple back in the ball game. Nice systems architecture, nice case and the claim is they're quiet as well. Oh, and don't forget you can put in 8GB of RAM. Now even OS X doesn't need to swap :-)
> 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
The 1GHz backplane is the real news. No processor benchmark test really takes into account the total real speed of the system when running applications.
The fast backplane will speed up IO, which is a common bottleneck. 1GHz for a PC backplane is huge. The only machine I had seen a 1GHz backplane in so far is a HP-UX server. It cost wayyy more than $2000 or even $3000.
I really believe that with this new chip alliance with IBM Apple will finally be able to put that "the OS is really cool, but PCs are always faster" stuff behind them.
Yesterday was a good day for apple.
It seems to me that if somebody wanted to use an inferior product, the first thing they'd do is develop a thick skin and at a minimum ignore the criticism being lobbed at their platform of choice. That, or choose to adopt something that seems to work better for the majority so that they don't have to feel left out all the time; obviously when you get to the point of chewing out people who are trying to show you why your choice is flawed it's become a popularity contest for you already (competing, not computing).
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Finally, I'm sure the real world testing, once available, will be of more interest to most people than any of these silly lab tests.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
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?
First nVidia, now this... how am I supposed to go bankrupt buying more computing power than I could ever hope to use?
seriously... so now we might think that in real world usage, the G5 is maybe just a little faster than the x86 competition instead of a S*** load faster. Considering the performance point of Apple's previous offerings, I'm not exactly dissapointed
Just as irrigation is the lifeblood of the Southwest, lifeblood is the soup of cannibals. -- Jack Handy
Anyone who's followed the computer industry for more than a couple minutes knows that there are lies, damned lies, and benchmarks.
Go use a machine, for tasks you'd typically perform -- that's the only benchmark that matters.
But if you must assign a number to the size of your virtual phallus, by all means, benchmark away...
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 can vouch for those unfortunate enough to have worked in the grocery industry (and have an idea of what that kind of mechandising entail) but this is hardly insightful. It happens on nearly everything that you buy.
When asking the pricing managers (which work for the chain, not an individual store) they replied that there was a study once done, indicating that there is a psychological tendancy to shy away from certain "maker" numbers as being too big. For example, the masses statistically believed that twenty dollars was too much to pay for item x, but for some reason, nineteen ninety-nine was not too much to pay for the same item. Funny thing is that with the same item, eighteen dollars would again be too much, but seventeen ninety-five wouldn't.
Even if the study is flawed or bogus, it is still being taught in the "front-line" marketing schools, (ie. grocery, drug-store, clothing, etc.) , and so I expect we will see nineteen ninety-five for many many years to come.
I'm leaning towards a similar conclusion (``My next boxen will be PowerMac G5'') for when it's finally time to retire my NeXT Cube.
The new case design addresses most of my complaints about the old G3/4 design (funky round handles and irregular surfaces make stacking / arranging things around those problematic, noisy (but grant it is quieter than my NeXT Cube) drive panel access---I guess the SuperDrive has no buttons on the face plate beyond eject?)
and Panther finally brings most of the missing features from NeXTstep (Faxing, PostScript support, speed) and Mac OS 9 (Labels, apparently working QuickDraw/GX like font support).
I'd give my interest in Hell though for a way to change the monolithic, immovable main menu to a movable vertical menu a la NeXTstep (w/ top-level Print and Services!), esp. w/ tear-off sub-menus, and really wish that there was a language option which would give one concise NeXT-style menu shortcut descriptions....
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
http://www.apple.com/powermac/graphics.html
337 fps with a twin 2.0 GHz and Radeon 9800 Pro @ 1024x768, 32 bit color
I really can't understand why the author of this piece takes the SPEC numbers provided by Intel and Dell at face value, rather than investigating them in detail the way he has with Apple's; Those guys have certainly done as much twiddling to perform well on those tests as Apple has.
And I can't understand why there's a problem with using GCC on the intel over ICC. Sure, GCC doesn't produce the fastest code for the x86. But it doesn't produce the fastest code for the PPC, either; For that you'd want to use the IBM compiler.
And the repeated claim that for "most people" integer performance is what matters is somewhat stupid: For the "most people" who are mostly exercising integer performance (i.e for web browsing, emails, word processing), a top-end box like the ones being compared here is overkill. For the people who do need this sort of speed, it's much more likely that there will be a large amount of FP in the mix.
Well.. you can have my 8-bit commodore 64 for free.. so the bang for the buck is infinite..
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.
But I still fail to understand why. If you don't want a faster computer, then don't buy one. But you're completely wrong that "it's just numbers." Sure, one step up a mountain is only one little step where no one can tell the difference. But then you take another step. And another. Before you know it, you've travelled 10, 100, 1,000 feet. That 40-minute video compression might take 39 minutes on the next step up, then 37, but eventually it will only take 1 minute, or less.
So don't dismiss numbers, especially if you can't see far enough to add them up!
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
Not really ...
Hyperthreading does not make you have 2 processors. In a "high level" nutshell, it allows queueing of thread processes to utilize periods of inactivity in the processor to execute them. In other words, Intel took a processor optimization, and slapped a "cool" name to it. Its like calling mmap() "HyperCache". Maybe on RISC chips with the reduced instruction set we should tag that as "Hyperpumped Instruction Path"
In running a single threaded benchmark, it has very little bearing on the final outcome.
So no, hyperthreading is not like having 2 processors. More like 1 processor optimized for threads.
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
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.
The author of the article makes the point that most programs use a single processor unless specifically written for using two, so we should downplay the dual processor results. A good point on the surface but examine it more deeply and it has two flaws:
1) This is Apple's Pro machine and many of the users are in the Graphic Arts, Audio and Film industry. The most siginificant programs in these fields do get optimized for the Mac platform.
2) I don't know about you, but it is normal for me to be doing several things at once on my computer. Listening to music, downloading email, munging video, plus about a hundred background tasks. The OS itself balances these separate tasks between the processors, so there is a very real and significant advantage to the dual processor even if the individual programs don't take advantage.
-I have no Sig yet I must scream...
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.
If I had a dollar for every time I've seen thius EXACT same comment. Seriously, do you just cut and paste this thing every time there is something related to apple on slashdot?
Misleading Prices
Both Apple and Dell are guilty of using misleading prices. For example, Apple gives the price of the low-end G5 as "$1999", and the high-end G5 as "$2999". In other words, they have subtracted $1 from a $3000 computer to make it seem cheaper, which is absolutely ridiculous. This demonstrates that both Apple and Dell are willing to mislead people when stating their prices.
Next crackpot, please.
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."
It's good that he took the time to dissect Apple's
benchmarks, and I would be interested to see new
benchmarks (although I do think that using gcc
on x86 isn't unreasonable). What really struck me
as childish about the author was that he actually
took the time to meet snide comments on his website
with snide comments of his own.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
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?
Even if it had a four-bit operating system made by a two-bit company? :)
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Apple turned off hyperthreading in the Dell precision machines, and disabled SSE2. These are modifications you're gonna notice using photoshop, so those benchmarks say nothing.
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
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.
> A G5 is faster than the fastest Intel box with Linux. Read the benchmark whitepaper. It describes the testing methodology in precise detail. In a side-by-side, controlled test, the single-processor G5 was 10% slower on integer performance but 20% faster on floating point performance than the Pentium 4 with Linux.
Apparently they never got so far as Chapter 1 in Hennesy & Patterson, where you learn the mantra of "make the common case fast".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Go read Jon "Hannibal" Stokes article about the world of benchmarking., over on his site, Ars Technica.
h tm l
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/2q99/benchmarking-1.
This will give you at least a basis for understanding why benchmarking is used, and what makes or breaks any given set of results. Also, feel free to argue about anything and everything that is said about these benchmarks, since, apparently, everyone of you is in the benchmarking labs day in and day out, testing systems and looking at the results on a scientific level.
I also think benchmark scores are, quite frankly, marketing bullshit. A processor designer can tweak a program and a compiler any number of ways to increase thier scores. The true test would be to use the SPEC benchmark suite with no flags set on the compiles for either platform. That way you are testing just the base processor, with no SIMD instructions, no disabling of the software prefetch algorhythms, no "cheats" as it were. Then test those same systems with every trick in the book thrown in. Then look at the difference. This will probably give you a better picture of the performance you will see in real world activities.
If you have a machine that absulotely sucks donkey when using no "cheats" and then you see this amazing boost in performance when the "cheats" are enabled, you probably are dealing with a highly optimized and specialized instruction set, which can be either very good for specific applications, but absolutely horrible for programmers who don't have access to, or don't bother to research, the abilities of that processor.
These are the benchmarks I'm interested in most. And it'll be at least late September before we see any of that.
Also, while all this is interesting, in an intelllectual sort of way, what about the actual perfomance gains over the current crop of G4's? Why not take a look at the difference between the SPEC scores of the dual 1.42GHz G4 towers, vs. the dual 2GHz G5's? That alone will tell you more about the increase in speed and power that has been delivered. If Apple had been smart, instead of trying to impress and piss off the x86 sparkheads they should have posted those scores as well, to give a real side by side comparrison between the speed and power of the G5 vs the bottlenecked, processor starving, gimp that is the G4. But that would make too much sense, wouldn't it? And you know marketing is all about confusing your consumer into beleiving that the latest and greatest is really what they want, not some old machine from 3 months ago...
Don't Ask Questions. I don't know the answers and even if I did I wouldn't tell you.
Just wait and see if Apple releases benchmark numbers to spec.org. There, they would have to pull out all stops (not use GCC, etc.) to get as high a number as they possibly can.
Considering the IBM pSeries benchmarks already trounce the P4 and Xeon using 1.7GHz POWER4 CPUs, it would be interesting to see how the G5 does with its smaller cache but at 2GHz (don't forget the 1GHz bus, either).
I think we would find the benchmarks at Apple.com were off, but probably not by much. Another thing that is not denyable is that the G5 scaled to two CPUs much much better than the Xeon (look at the rate numbers--this is unsuprising given the POWER4 heritage).
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
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.
Holy shit! Now that you mention it, all KINDS of manufacturers have been pulling this "knock off a dollar" trick on me. I've been getting duped! No wonder the money goes so fast...
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
There's a pretty deep irony here. As you note, Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet -- but the hysterical right-wing press claimed he did, and repeated the lie so often that people believed it. Similarly, I suspect that Apple's claims are in fact much more honest than the author of the article claims -- but he's clearly hoping that if he's loud and shrill enough, people will believe him.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
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."
I'm sure that the actions, filters, and files that apple uses for their photoshop performance displays highlight the mac's prowess as much as possible while, at the same time, try to bash the x86 machine as much as possible.
I think apple's purpose for these claims goes beyond the fact that their trying to sell machines. They're trying to exterminate all of these myths that have been going around for the longest time about their hardware/ software. 90% of the people I know that don't like macs don't like them because the ones in their middleschool/highschool were horribly upkept and would not work or crash too often to be usable. I think that a major reason why apple went with the BSD underbelly in OSX.
Also, these fucken trolls on slashdot with that story of "my 350mhz g3 is barely usable if I'm copying a file and playing an mp3." Fuck that, I had my 132mhz 7600 (604 based machine) running fucken OS 7.6 and I could download, listen to mp3s, chat, and surf the web with minimal problems. Granted, I had 256mb of RAM in there, but it was fine. Only when the applications started getting more robust that that computer began getting unusable, and by that time, I had a 450mhz G3 which is STILL in use.
Although, apple does piss me off sometimes with their claims which, although true, ARE misleading and cause these mac fanatics to make outrageous claims based on Apple's statements/ demonstrations.
Although many mac users (fanatics?) are idiots, I think that there's a much higher percentage of windows users who are, too. And the windows users are much more likely to pick a fight about it.
Platform choice is a preference! Use what you like. Use what likes you. Use what makes you whole.
...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...
I could swear I've seen this somewhere else today... hmm... yes that would be this article on AMDzone. Take a look at the second page for the SPEC score comparison...
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
Its obvious that the new PowerMacs are aimed at early adopters doing things that people have not really caught up with. DVD burners are cheap now. Make your own movie. Play with the iMovie effects plugins. I'd like to see (later) DV/HDTV rendering performance compared on different systems: AFTER the iMovie plugins crowd has a chance to catch up.
Oh, and in case you don't understand where games are going or you never saw "The Matrix" or any other VR sci-fi, convincing virtual reality relies on MASSIVE databases of objects filtering out the things that would get obscured by other objects, and streaming them to a rendering engine/GPU. I could just say CG animated movies, but really we will be playing *in* the CG scene and not just watching it play. I want to see the NEXT game made for the PowerMac.
Also, benchmarks are putting the cart before the horse. A new architecture or platform is a challenge to programmers: Saturate THIS! Imagine as a programmer if you took turns completely exploiting a machine at a time and simply reported the results. If you do a test that is a greatest common denominator of two platforms, you ignore the value of the incompatible feature sets of each respective platform. A real benchmark illustrates the full potential of each compared system, which provides an illustration of their differences. What happens when there isn't really any software to exploit the potentials of either/both of the platforms?
PCs are cheap and fast, but not really that advanced. There isn't much unexplored potential to attract the early adopters and the fatter profit margin supplying their hardware. I understand if you want to get the most for your money, but for some people, money isn't the top criterion.
Consider as a side note that after a year, top end Mac computers only lose half of their market value. So, after a year, you can almost trade-in your old high-end Mac whereas you're stuck with the comparative PC model. What can you get with a $1500/year budget over 5 years? Can you push the envelope on a PC? That's a tough question.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
With regard to price, if you're after a high-end system, he represents that the high end of the Dell line comes in at $3680, yet rapidly returns to promoting the idea that a $2000 Dell is equivalent. In an effort to configure up an Intel system comparable to the new high-end Apple PowerMac G5, I ran the Dell configurator. It clocks in at $3939:and that's with a lesser video card and a smaller, slower IDE hard drive (add $840 for SCSI, a better comparison with Serial-ATA). I don't think I was being unfair in my selection of components. (OK, add $30 for a USB floppy on the Mac if necessary)
This guy certainly has a point about the non-optimized Intel benchmarks, but he reveals his prejudice by not offering a fair price comparison.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1 296
The author claims that the P4 is "Faster on integer single-processor tasks, which is what most people use most of the time."
This is patently false. Typically, users run more than one program at a time. At the very least, there's an application, and the operating system. The machine I'm typing this on has 40 processes going, totalling a few hundred threads. Single-porcessor systems may have been king back in 1995, but these days you can typically make excellent use of multiple processors.
No doubt in a couple of days time a new Amiga will be announced... Twice as fast as the G5, with integrated hardware um stuff, and all that.
Then we can really start the fan wars.
The Mac zealot replies to this guy's site were pretty funny, but Amiga worshippers are in a different league...
Ug... /.ed so soon.
Since I was bored, I went to look at apple's site. Something struck me as odd. I think they are using the same chip for all three models. From a "hurry and get these out the door" view it makes sense to use the same chip, why take the extra effort to detune them, just run it at a lower FSB.
1.6GHz PowerPC G5
800MHz frontside bus
200*8=1600
1.8GHz PowerPC G5
900MHz frontside bus
225*8=1800
2GHz PowerPC G5
1GHz frontside bus
250*8=2000
Quad pump them and there you have your 800,900,1000 FSB.
I'll be willing to bet that someone figures out how to make a the 1.6 a 2.0 within two months. Then again, I've been way off before. The MB could be waaaaay different.
Take this benchmark for instance. Apple disclosed all the information they had to. They never LIED to the public (at least with this), but by burying necessary information deep and showing only numbers they have managed to mislead anyone who is too stupid to do further research. If you can't find the little link underneath the data shown and click on it, they figure you deserve to know only what they say.
CODITO, ERGO SUM: I Code, therefore I am.
Apple used G5 specific optimizations in GCC. They also used a specialized malloc(), which they didn't use for the PC. Also, they disabled SSE2 on the PC. And hyperthreading on the Xeon. And they used specific hardware tweaks on the G5.
(besides, even if GCC isn't poorly optimized for the x86, one could argue that the NAGWare Fortran compiler, used for most of the floating point tests, is.)
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
>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.
I especially liked the hatemail at the end. This was my favorite:
People that go to ivory league schools that live in trailers are a very low population, lets say 1% so since there are 99% of the people living in houses then you can clearly see that people that live in trailers are stupid, when compared to they're counter parts. Or put it this way, any finite number divided by infinity results in a number so small it does not exists. So any people that live in trailers that go to ivory league school you meet in passing are just figments of your imagination. Point is if you like Macintosh use it, if you don't then well don't use it.
Heh. That sure dispels this guy's critique of Apple's benchmarks, eh?
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
The most interesting thing about that page is the collection of hate mail that he got. Nevermind all that benchmark stuff that he yammers on about - everybody knows benchmarks are bullshit anyway.
Those comments really demonstrate the applicability of the bell curve to real-life situations, especially things like intelligence of a population.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
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
Does this mean that my Pentium III doesn't really make the internet any faster? It was all a facade to sell me more processing power? Oh, the humanity.
-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-
What would Yossarian do?
I really don't give a shit if Apple fudged their benchmarks on SPEC. I expect as much from them, AMD and Intel. I take those numbers with a grain of salt. However, it's difficult for me to believe that they could have fudged the systems to such an extent that the G5 is twice as fast in Photoshop and Mathematica. I don't care what the benchmark is, you can't have results like that without the chip actually being faster than the competition. At this point, it's just a matter of degree. Maybe the G5 is only 1.8x faster in Photoshop under ideal conditions in both tests; who knows? Do I care? No, because it'll be faster.
... but come on Apple; where's double-precision AltiVec?!). The audio tests were also very telling. While I'm a bit skeptical about the applications not being the same, I think it does say a lot about the audio capabilities of the G5 and what it can do with a scant 25% of its CPU power.
The guy from Wolfram Research made it clear that the G5 outclasses the Pentium 4 in the scientific computing arena to such an extent that it doesn't even compete with it anymore; it competes with high-end UNIX workstations (and beats them, too, apparently
Bottom line, people are starting to try and eek out the edge on Mac vs. PC performance, and that's a good thing. With the G4, that was impossible because the G4 boxes were outclassed by such a huge margin by the x86 ones. Any way you look at it, these machines are competitive. And they run Mac OS X; the Pentium 4 does not. Therefore, I'll be buying the G5 next because I'll get competitive performance with the best OS on the planet.
"In other words, they have subtracted $1 from a $3000 computer to make it seem cheaper, which is absolutely ridiculous."
Those lying fucking bastards. I've never seen that before in my life. Never - I repeat - never, have I seen a product priced at anything less than a perfectly round figure. I'm so glad I read spl's soapbox. I mean, I went to the Apple store, and saw that it was $1999, and I admit it, I said "I could afford this." But thanks to the philanthropy of spl, I was forced to examine it further. If you actually sit down and do the math, $1999 is not, in fact, a thousand dollars and a little more - no, innocent consumer! $1999 is nothing less than a dollar shy of $2000!
c-hack.com |
I hope this doesn't make me sound naive, but didn't they actually do comparison tests with Photoshop, Mathematica, Logic, and a couple others in front of a live audience? Didn't the G5 cream the competition? C'mon people, yesterday was a reason for Mac fans to get boners, and today some guy who really thinks Apple and Dell are horrible companies for knocking $1 off their prices is gonna give the PC fans boners? Enough with the boners already, they're just benchmarks and they mean next to nil.
Well, when I go to buy, say, a new processor, and one store has it for $199 and the other has it for $200, I'm going to buy the $199 for the sole reason of being able to answer "Oh, 100-something dollars" to my wife's question of "How much did that stupid thing COST?" instead of having to say "200 dollars".
MORTAR COMBAT!
This guys site is jumping all over Apple about being slower...when using a single processor!
This guys site even says:
"SPECint_base2000 is a single-processor test, so in the following results, where the computer has a second processor, it is either disabled or not used." then goes on to say after the benchmarks using only single processors: "As you can see, the PowerMac G5 is NOT the world's fastest personal computer. In fact, the Dell Dimension 8300 beats the PowerMac G5"
Well a big DUH is in order. Steve Jobs even SAID it was slower. He had a graphic up that showed how the single processor G5 was slower on INT based benchmarks etc etc. It was when they used benchmarks using DUAL processors that it really shined.
Yes, after all this in the article, THEN he goes on to rate the dual processors, but not before he trashes the Mac on something that the Mac had already admited to. I mean, that's pure trolling.
Bottom line, Apple used certain results in all the tests to market the new computer...just like this guy used the same tests to filter out what HE wanted everyone to see.
Also, Apple should never use benchmarks to market anything. No one should. It's too easy for others...no matter what the system to say "well, if you configure blah blah blah with this and compile with blah blah blah you'll see the Commodore 64 is really blah blah blah.
Enough already.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
Apple used gcc, which did give the 970 an advantage - but is hardly 'tweaked' for the Mac. I'd like to see IBM's own 970 numbers, using a compiler optimized for POWER/PPC in the same way ICC is optimized for x86. I haven't checked them personally, but somebody in the G5 announcement article has, and pointed out (too lazy to link up, sorry) that if you look at both optimized sets of benchmarks, the magnitude grows, but the relationship stays pretty much the same.
Anyway, as a longtime Mac guy, it's nice to see some LEGITIMATE argument about who's fastest, and it gives me a warm feeling deep down inside to know that the *initial* release of the 970 is this fast - I look forward with much anticipation to what IBM does with this chip in the next 12-18 months (coincincidentally the practical timeframe for replacing my dual 1.25, which suddenly doesn't have nearly the appeal it used to...)
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
You mean to tell me you guys actually thought material that starts with "As PC users know only too well" [http://www.apple.com/powermac/architecture.html] is credible? It reeks of deceit and lies.
People, people. Fruits are not faster than Pentiums. Don't believe the hype!
Must-not-watch TV!
Using SIMD instructions is a huge part of the performance of modern processors. Heck, even using SSE2 for scalar arithmetic is faster than using the old 387 instructions.
Saying "disable SIMD -- it's an optimization" is almost like saying "don't use shift instructions for power-of-two multiplies -- it's an optimization". Or "don't keep loop variables in registers -- it's an optimization." If the compiler can do it without weird tweaky flags turned on, then let it be done, i say!
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
Apple tweaks the specs to make their system look faster.
Dell tweaks the specs to make their system look faster.
Apple does not use Dell's tweaked specs but instead chooses to cripple Dell's machine for benchmarking purposes. Dell did not cripple an Apple machine for comparison.
Any questions?
Ayup
Assuming it's bang/buck, and buck = 0, then bang/buck is Undefined. (division by zero!)
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
I find this "article" highly dubious... and am amazed slashdot let this slide... actualy im not... it seems /. is intent on fueling the platform war fires for more hits and such, because this was blatant flmae-bait trash.
While it has been discussed that the differences between GCC and ICC(??) on the two platforms makes for a supposed im-balance, the subjects are highly subjective. The main grip is that it is extremely hard to determine what IS a fair test of raw CPU power. This guy continuously claims that the number one score to rate by should be the specint_2000 test (which favors intel considerably) because most people will "never" use FP...
that is a pile of bullshit... aqua alone (doing all of your interface goodies) must use FP constantly, in fact i would dare say that FP is constant and highly important on OSX, it contributes immensly to the look and feel of it. dual-processing is NOT an exclusive to specialy coded programs. That was true to OS 9, but more recent builds split tasks far better than before (although nowhere near a perfect balence).... and so buying a dual machine isnt a pointless expenditure.
the guy claims that you can buy a dell at 3.06 for less than 2.5k with ALL of the equivilent features of the powermac..... i encourage you ALL to go to dell.com and config a dell with a DVD-r along with firewire, serial-ata (cant do it), bluetooth, 1gig ethernet, 802.11g, PCI-x (cant do it), 8gb RAM cpacity (cant do it) etc.... Now you cant add some of these features from dell... which will send some of you off to www.pricewatch.com to find the ABSOLUTE rock bottom prices on the extra parts and pieces... but you can all see the price difference for an equivilent system is tiny if not reversed.
if someone could link me to a PC with equivlient features (pci-x, agp 8x, 802.11g, 1gig ethernet, serial-ata, p4 3.06, bluetooth, etc...) i would love to see honest comparisons of the price. The 8gb limit simply can't be done, so the value of it is hard to quantify, as a music guy myself i can actualy see it's value, but many people can effectivly argue it is above and beyond current consumer demands. but current consumers arent looking for pro boxes.
my main point of contention is that there is too much LACK of knowledge in regards to spec and architecture. We don't know if these tests are balenced or not, or why they were performed however they were performed. This may have been the best way to compare the two on a bit for bit level, or maybe not. Apple has it's own intrests, how solid is veritests credibility? did money change hands? how much? etc.... GCC has been reputed to being apples baby as far as compliing.... but does that mean it was fully optimized towards PPC, and the vice versa agasint the PC?
What we DO know is that the PPC is scalable in MP configs, it is a FP monster, and the P4 is NOT MP (hence the xeon tests, which really are not consumer class chips) and the P4 is an INT monster. I expected the P4 to smoke the G5 on int, and it didn't (smoke it, just beat it well). As well i find it laughable that the first fab of a new chip (970) running 30% slower (in mhz) performs so well against the top p4. The G5 has come out the gate on a level of extreme competitivness and has a significant space to grow in... 3ghz in under 12 months? putting the G5 at 3ghz about when the p4 will hit 4ghz. The speed tests there will probably favor the G5 FAR MORE than these.
One last point, we can say much about how these tests are scewed towards apple in that the Compiler along with the "cheats" all seem to point towards manipulation.... but at the same time two HUGE benefits of the G5 arent being quantified either.... 64 bits AND 8gb of RAM are huge advantages that if fully utilized would lend such a huge performance gap it isnt funny (look at the genome matching with 40 bit words). So in a sense maybe these tests were balanced.
Too many variables to call this one, the G5 i suspect is faster on FP, but not on int (as apple indicated)... but
--Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
If you visit the Apple store, click on the big advertisement on the center to select your PowerMac G5. In the upper-right part of the screen it states:
"Just how fast? Get the proof here.". Following this link will take you to Apple's own site where you can read details about the benchmark.
What's missing?
The comparison between G4-optimized benchmarks and the current G5-optimized benchmarks.
Ayup
The idea that an FPU is totally useless is untrue. glibc will use the large FPU registers for optimized memory copies if they are not being used for real floating point operations.
I work on an embedded PowerPC product that has no FPU so we had to build a special glibc that does not use the FPU registers.
I don't know if Apple is using a glibc with these optimizations. If they are then their customers could appreciate some use of the dual FPU cores in everyday integer types of computing.
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
All of the talk about benchmarks is basically noise to me. I could care less about the tests that ALL companies in this industry run. Here are some suggested benchmark tests that WOULD matter to me (an average user):
- Time it takes to order the computer.
- Time it takes for computer to arrive.
- Time it takes to unpack and set up hardware.
- Time it takes to first boot up and configure for use.
- Time it takes to install standard applications (MS Office, Netscape Communicator, or Kazaa for example).
- Time it takes to start up said applications on subsequent uses.
- Time it takes to access removable storage devices (like CDs or DVDs) for directory listings, opening files and playing media.
- Time it takes to shut down machine.
- Time it takes to "restart" machine.
- Time it takes to change users.
These are some basic tasks that most average users perform day to day. The configuration of the machine mentioned in step 4 should be basic, with no "options" that the average user wouldn't know to use. I have no idea who would win these tests. Now, I don't know if this is the market that Apple is going after, it's just me.More important that speed is what I can run. Can I run my favorite games? My favorite browser? My favorite office applications? Apple does fairly well here except in the game category (at least last I checked... which as an average user was a while ago).
Come play Moral Decay!
A lot of people seem to be missing his point here, saying that "Well, AMD and Intel probably manipulated their results too, but he accepts those." His point isn't that Apple optimized the benchmark so that their system would perform well, his point is that they crippled the competition, turning off important new features. There is no doubt that AMD and Intel had every optimization turned on when they did their tests, and that's fine. The problem that he raises is that Apple disabled the competition in their own tests.
I went from an Atari 800 with a Atari 410 Cassette drive to a Compaq Plus with a Floppy Drive & a 10MB Hard Disk Drive.
I refused to use the hard drive for like six months because floppy disk was more than enough for me.
Of course, I was like eight at the time too and had no real idea what a system running from a hard disk would perform like...
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
How much does it cost to add an extra Intel 3GHz CPU to your personal desktop? Certainly not enough to make up the difference between the Dell's and Apple's 2CPU computer.
In terms of price/performance, x86's are still the best. You just need to add and extra CPU for ?300? bucks (I haven't kept up to date on CPU prcies). So, why would anyone who wants CPU-performance waste the money on a Mac?
All of this obsession with CPU-performance is pretty lame, in my opinion. My 1.1GHz is still plenty fast. More important than a fast CPU is a fast hard drive. Most wait-time is waiting for programs to load, since most ordinary uses of a computer aren't CPU-intensive. And of course RAM.
Spend your money getting faster hard-drives (e.g., 10,000rpm ATA-166 hard-drives) and faster RAM (e.g., DDR RAM).
If your a gamer, don't be fooled by the CPU-obsession. GPU's is where gaming performance is at. Getting a CPU twice as fast might increase your fps by 2 frames per ssecond -- for another $100 bucks. If you're a multi-media person, again, the graphics card (GPU) is where it's at. If you're a casual or amatuer, you can just get the gamer-line GPUs. If you need perfect quality, you'll probably want the QUADRO GeForces.
The only people who really *need* CPUs faster than 1GHz are people who do a lot of number-crunching. Usually scientists. And maybe people who compile their own software, if you want it to compile faster (though the whole point of compiling yourself is to get better performance without having to upgrade your CPU). A better thing to do if you want to compile your own software (e.g., if you use Debian, *BSD, or are a developer), would be to find a high-end *nix computer that you can use to compile it on, with options for your computer.
Don't buy the GHz hype. More GHz will not make your programs load faster, and will most certainly not make your computer much more responsive.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
The reason people care is when you go to the Apple site there is a big headline that the Apple G5 is the world's fastest desktop computer, when in fact any way you cut it, it is not. If any other company pulled this kind of shit it would be ridiculed in a minute, but Apple abuses the loyalty of its users. As someone who uses macs occasionaly at work and home, I like the product but hate the BS tactics of the company and stupidity of a small but vocal portion of its user base.
...right up until he wrote about how Apple and Dell are "misleading" customers by pricing their their boxes at $x-1 instead of $x. As if their sales really are dependent on nitwits saying "hot damn, I can get that machine for under $x! I never would've bought it for that much!" In short, his whining about a "marketing ploy" is a complaint about a pricing policy so common that, well, almost everyone, from computer companies to car companies to the corner grocer selling apples for 99 cents a pound are "misleading the public". And if people can be so mislead by a one cent/dollar reduction in price, who would be intelligent enough to read his review?
He also casually mentions that "most people use Integer (not FP) most of the time. Therefore, integer results (SPECint) are much more important than floating-point results (SPECfp)." What qualifies as "most people" using integer "most of the time"? Doesn't he have any data on FP usage?
And was I the only person that noticed almost all the results he posted had a caveat that such a benchmark "is a single-processor test, so in the following results, where the computer has a second processor, it is either disabled or not used."? Aren't these dual processor Apples we're comparing with single processor Oranges? (sorry, couldn't resist.) It might make sense if Apple actually ships machines with useless second processors where architecture and OS make them essentially uniprocessor machines. But if Apple does indeed sell multiprocessor machines, and I understand it, they are, shouldn't that be taken into account? What I read was not that Apple claimed that the PPC 970 is the fastest chip, but rather the dual processor G5 is the fastest desktop computer.
About all he convinced me of is that Apple perhaps twisting benchmarks for their own ends. But his review is hardly a clear and unambiguous refutation of Apple's statements.
B
"I'm payin' taxes, but what am I buyin'?" -- James Brown
...using a G5 that fell off the back of a truck and the latest computer from Dell. Borrowing Apple's technique of "tinkering" with the systems, I optimized the Dell system to it's highest level of performance. I made only a single modification to the Apple system: removing its power cord.
Interesting enough, the Dell system matched the numbers found on the SPEC website, but the G5 was unable to complete the benchmark.
I think that this test, which can be easily duplicated, shows conclusively that Apple's G5 marketing is a complete lie.
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
-Lucas
The emagic comparison seems a little fishy though
Not sure if it's on the site, or just on the tech specs pdf (where I'm pretty sure I saw it), but the audio comparison is really bugged out. First of all, the title bar says "Logic vs. Cubase," but we're not comparing apps, we're comparing procs. Does that mean they're running Logic on the Macs and Cubase on the PCs? If so, the comparison is absolutely meaningless.
Then they say "with 5 plug-ins." Which ones? Which brands? Waves? Different plug-ins take up different amounts of proc usage. I can only do one high-quality reverb at a time, but lots of eq's. And were there 5 plug-in on each track, or 5 plugins that each track was routed through?
Then their results: 52 track, 115 tracks, etc. That's a lot of tracks. But again, meaningless.
A good benchmark would be:
Digidesign's Pro Tools Free, no audio hardware except what came with the computer. Record 8 tracks of 24-bit/96khz audio (or whatever). Then pile the plugins on, and use the exact same ones in the exact same places on each machine. Let us know when the interface gets sluggish, and then when it craps out. Also let us know how it craps out. Crash? Doesn't respond? But for crying out loud, don't give us worthless numbers.
c-hack.com |
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...
At work, we just bechmarked the Dell systems a month ago and got very similar results to Apple for the "base" rate. The article seems to be quoting the "peak" rate for the Dells. It's not valid to compare peak rates yet because gcc 3.3 and os 10.3 aren't really fully optimized yet.
The article also complains that using the NAGWare compilers is not a valid test since they're too slow. But I think the NAGWare compiler is a more vallid comparison than intel's compiler because most real-world computing is done with NAGWare because it fully implements the F95 spec and is more portable. In addition NAGWare is well tested for accuracy and it also very much cheaper.
The Dell benchmark numbers are pure fantasy. They never occur in real-world use.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
I don't. However, his analysis is easily replicated and interpreted. Instead of discounting what he says because he frequently debunks Mac propaganda, why don't you attack him on the points that he made? I'd be interested in seeing that.
Additionally, being a mac user, why would it make sense for him to have it out for the mac?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I just read the veritest document myself. This guy did not show the complete picture at all. First, in favour of Apple, these tests were run on Mac OS X 10.2.7. I don't think this is the 64-bit kernel that can really take advantage of the G5. I'm not a mac head, but I'm guessing this is Smeagol?
So right from the start the G5 is seriously crippled in these tests. Especially if they don't even take advantage of 64-bit as seems to be the case. Now, on the the other points that the spl dude makes.
Sure the special malloc library seems a bit unfair. But then again, do these tests really focus on memory allocation? I'd think they are limited by CPU power more than memory allocation. In any case, it'd be nice if we saw results without this library.
Now for the comfusing part. The 8300 only has a single cpu. For the base tests, they use hyperthreading and an SMP kernel. They do the exact same test for the 650's base test, hyperthreading with a single processor and an SMP kernel. The G5 system is run with a single processor as well.
So it seems this test is well balanced and fair. The confusing part is the rate tests.
For the 8300 they have no hyperthreading and a uniprocessor kernel. For the 650 they have no hyperthreading and an SMP kernel with two processors. The G5 system is run with two processors. It's unclear why they chose not to use hyperthreading on the rate test. It could be that hyperthreading actually reduced the scores of these tests. I'm no expert on the SPEC tests and hyperthreading, but what I do know is that hyperthreading is an intelligent technology. It can't always increase speed, it depends on what kind of code it's running. In the rate test it's possible that hyperthreading is unable to yeild any improvements, in which case the overhead of enabling hyperthreading may make the scores worse than without hyperthreading.
At anyrate, the tests were a LOT more fair than the dpl guy makes them out. And considering that the G5 could be seriously crippled by not running 64-bit and who knows what other optimisatoins, I'd say that the numbers are still impressive.
..because most people have apparently not read through the whole thing.
"[...] In other words, most people should ignore floating-point results because they do not use floating-point anyway (or not much)."
This is utter bullshit. Floating point is extremely important for many productivity applications--anything graphics, 3D, modelling, scientific, CAD, etc. Ignore floating point?! What the hell crack is he smoking?
The whole article is filled with this kind of fart-biting. The data are far more interesting without his stupid inane conclusions muddying the waters.
is it's all crap. I don;t care if your Intel, AMD, or Apple. They all lie about how fast there cpu's are and benchmarks can always be easily scewed - whether its by turning off SSE2 (as in this article) or if they change the bios settings from the default on one machine (as toms hardware said AMD recommended for their 3200+ benchmarking) - its all made up.
I'm never going to ALWAYS have the latest and greatest system (My pc is a P4 1.6 and the mac i'm using to type this is a Dual G4 500) but what makes my choice for what System to use comes down to one simple thing....
WHAT THE SOFTWARE I AM USING RUNS BETTER ON.
When I want to use telnet, ssh, ftp (cuteftp, dreamweaver), or any internet related app - I find that for my setup they seem to work better on my pc for some reason, when I want to run Photoshop (although when working with files over 80megs it seems to open faster and run filters faster on my PC) or Illustrator or even Quark they seem more responsive on my Apple.
If I had to make a choice and choose only 1 system (glad I don't have too) I would probably choose a really expensive PC (like a Dual P4 3.2ghz with HT or something) ONLY because it would be cheeper for me to build (read not purchase a Dell) than the cost of a single mac.
But in real life I don't have to make a choice or rather i've made the choce to use both - and hay I can still play Diablo on both too - although if I want to play more games like Arcanum or Final Fantasy or Neverwinter Nights i'm kinda stuck only using my PC.
Ave Molech Setting
Gee, a manufacturer (in any field) messes with the numbers to make its product look better... imagine that!
But did anyone notice that the author plugs his own business while stating the obvious?
-A
Just tell me how fast Lightwave renders. That is where time actually equals money for me.
"Derp de derp."
until the Pentium 5 emerges
So are they going to call that new chip the "Pentium Pentium"?
Here are some SPEC results I googled for, commisioned from SUN on their Xeon based Fire V65x, running a single 3.06 GHz Xeon. You'll notice that they, too, disabled Hyperthreading. Obviously, Sun would have wanted these benchies to be as fast as possible. So, probably, the single thread used for SPEC scores is best suited by TURNING HYPERTHREADING OFF.
s 20 03q2/cpu2000-20030520-02193.pdf
Meaning, if Apple's results are reliable (which I think they are...levelling both machines by optimizing them for neutral operations and having them run neutral code), they tuned the Dell FOR SPEC. They didn't decrease its performance -- they probably increased it a bit.
http://www.specbench.org/osg/cpu2000/results/re
Just because you put the words "Fast" or "Hyper" in front of a chip's feature doesn't automatically make it faster, as any BIOS hacker knows.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
who cares how fast it is? it's a MAC !
Are G5 faster than the G4 machines they replaced?
Yes, they are. The real argument is just about *how much* faster? (That and "did Apple cheat?", which is simple to answer: yes, they all do - all the time).
While the processor may not be suitable for the title of "fastest desktop" out there, you still have to give Apple credit for redesigning the entire architecture, which is more important than raw CPU power for Mac users. Because, you see, Mac OS X with all its little gizmos is really hungry for hardware acceleration of any kind. So graphics and memory throughput are important. While the G5 may not "compute" as fast as the newest Pentium, it will finally resolve the sluggishness problems of Apple's operating system. It will feel really fast. Who's going to notice raw CPU speed anyway? *cough* OK, but that may not have been the most pressing issue with Macs.
There's always a way to contrive some benchmark that will make system x seems faster than system y -- try hard enough, and you'll find a way.
But what matters is whether or not the benchmark is in some way relevant to the work you're doing. I can tell you, for the stuff that I'm doing, this benchmark has relevance. The article's biggest complaint is that gcc3 is being used on all the processors -- well welcome to the real world buddy!
I use a an analysis package called Root all day long. Go looking through the makefile for Root and you'll see that when it's compiled on macosx it uses gcc3 and when it's compiled on linux running on intel processors, it uses gcc3. So these benchmarks reflect the kind of performance I should see -- hence it's relevant to me and thousands of other people... that makes it a pretty good benchmark IMO.
DFDie Menschen verhoehnen was sie nicht verstehen. -- Goethe.
Did someone really have to go through all that
trouble to prove to everyone that benchmarks were
rigged? People just need to learn to use the
hardware/software they like and not get up in a
rage when other people don't.
I think it's just fine if apple uses a specialized malloc() library. It was built to take advantage of the G5 processor, and they are candid about that. What is really going on is that they are trying to even the playing field a bit, because the compilers used on the intel-type machines have been in development on those processors for a long time. They already have a lot of optimization built-in. The G5s are supported, but haven't been for long. Apple is trying to simulate the malloc() library that might be used later, once they can makemore efficient. Oh, and not to mention, this 'argument' he puts together depends on you not reading the same PDF he claims to have read. Go download it and make your own informed conclusions. From the perspective of a long time programmer and x86 user...this doesn't appear too misleading. Anymore than what intel clims HT can do (another flaw in this guy's argument).
====
Crudely Drawn Games
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?
With Apple's price point at $3K, they're priced up there with the entry level high-end workstations. HP's Itanium 2 workstation sells for around $3.3K. Sun's base 64-bit workstation is a little under $2K. So Apple's 64-bit offerings have to be compared with the expensive boxes, not what's selling at WalMart.
Apple is probably ahead on price/performance and usability in 64-bit desktops, but they're not first.
It's interesting that many people are critical of the benchmark results Apple trumpets. Certainly there are many that can address that topic. Depreciating the numbers, however, doesn't address the more interesting topic, which is:
How do you like the rest of the motherboard?
1 Gig frontside bus X2, PCI-X X3, Serial ATA X2 with separate channels for each drive, USB 2.0/FW 800 & 400, AGP 8X, DMA for every I/O function without bandwidth contention, etc.
Seems to me this may be the most advanced motherboard ever put in any desktop, affordable computer.
And even if you don't believe the SPEC stuff, how about the software demos? Just lies, I suppose.
If y'all had taken the system diagram Apple is showing and substituted 2 Pentium 4's or 2 XEONs for the 2 970's, it would be touted as an Alienware-buster and proof that Wintel is King.
Better check your bubbles for bursting.
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.
In a 64-bit address space, all your pointers take up twice the space.
This IS SIGNIFICANT in many applications, and they must be run in the 32-bit mode.
The extra address space helps you only if you're willing to spend another several hundred dollars to get over 2 gigs of RAM, or are willing to put up with a huge swap.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
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.
I have no tag line
As the author of a "hate mail" (starting "Flamebait- My question is: Why is MacNN giving any attention to this?"), I can verify that my post was taken from MacNN and not mailed to the author. It was meant as a critique of the article, not an expression of hate to the author as it is presented.
/. (and that's saying a lot) is picking apart these numbers, and that a detailed analysis is poking through the posts. But I'm saddened that they are buried amongst a landfill of posts from passionate, persuasive people spending their neural energy on "mac fanatics" and "deceptive marketing."
So let me take a moment to reiterate the original point.
I am, like any Mac user, deeply concerned when somebody claims that Apple is using false numbers. The author is welcome to his or her opinion, but I found the claim - that the Veritest numbers are false - was never substantiated: they're as true as any other benchmark. So, no biggie.
But it it the tone of the article that got to me. Claims like, "Apple is attempting to deliberately mislead," and "Apple cheated" and "a significant percentage of [Mac users] are crazy fanatics" have no place in a technical discussion of benchmarks, and undermine the author's believability. All authors have a point of view, but bias is another animal altogether. Authors need to be open-minded to be believable, and this author's use of hyperbole and emotional phrases betrays a certain zeal. Despite what may have been the author's best efforts, the article is not a level-headed, rational discussion about benchmarks. It is a fanatical rant.
And, hey, I'm all for fanatical rants. Not only do I enjoy them, but I am the source of many. My objection, though, was to the editors of the Mac News Network (MacNN) for posting this article, unqualified, as news. It is not news. News informs, and a fanatical rant actually does the opposite: it polarizes. People take a side and stick with it, regardless of facts. The speed of the new G5s is a very very important issue, and this article is a step backwards in understanding these highly complex comparisons.
So, needless to say, I find it *highly* telling that my editorial objection was co-opted by the author as "hate mail." And the response to it just further underscores my point that this is not a rational investigation, but a crusade.
I'd also like to note that, for whatever reason, MacNN has since removed the news article from their site.
I'm glad that the comparative level-headedness of
would like to send my $6000 to buy a top end G5 as well as a top end PC, I would be glad to perform independant, unbiased benchmarks on productions systems :) Anyway, I think that all this crap about arguing over Mac and PC is really dumb. Use what appeals to you. I think that OS X is probably a great os, even though I have not used it very often. I use Windows XP every day and I can say it is also great. The one thing I can say is that I think that Windows has a much better way of managing individual windows, even with the new Expose system mac has devised. To me the way OS X switches windows seems like something akin to what I find on my pocket pc (at least the old way, I'm guessing Expose is a huge improvement, but still not as good as having the task bar.) Anyway, this is just my opinion, I think that everyone should just save their energy when trying to argue that Mac is better than PC or that PC is better than Mac. I use an Alienware box, and I must say that I absolutely love it and I'm sure that Mac users feel the same about their purchases.
SIGFAULT
Oh for god's sake just drop it already. We all know you CANNOT compare PPC and x86 processors! With clock speed, it's like Miles and Kilometers, and every system setup is different, conditions are different, hell even temperature can affect performance. Comparing the Apple results to the Intel results... its more likely that Intel has ALSO manipulated their tests!
Who cares about SPEC benchmarks. Get real-world tests, which the G5 clearly spanked the Xeon system on.
It's like saying I get higher 3dMark scores than you do, but I get less FPS in games. Which computer would you rather have? You want real benchmarks, not artificial ones.
Orange
Does anyone have benchmark information on the IO abilities of the G5? Raw CPU power isn't the only important factor in a modern computer's performance.
he clearly states that the Dell benchmarks are higher from using an optimized compiler and even makes a comparison to prove the point between the low apple score and the dell one which is double that... and he goes on about hyperthreading etc
if you're refering to the part where he's taking quotes of the veritest results pdf and showing where apple used G5 optimizations for their benchmarks etc well, does Dell have that kind of information even available about the desktop model he is talking about? my guess would be no since it's not there and this guy went out of his way to be thorough in every other aspect
Maybe I'll be accused of trolling (again), but I have to ask, what's wrong with just basing evaluations like this on unoptimized vanilla out-of-the-box systems using only software available to all systems?
I do understand though that when it comes to GCC, the PPC support is less mature than x86 support, resulting in a possible disadvantage.
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?
(read other fucking articles) :)
As other people have pointed out, Altivec was also disabled, so the SSE2 argument is a red herring. This also makes the rest of the article suspect: the guy looks at what was disabled on the PC, but ignores what was disabled on the Mac.
What I would like to see, is someone from SPEC to comment on what flags they used/didn't use.
Hmmm... I seem to have been posting this a lot today. Disabling Hyper Threading can make the SPEC scores look better.