Slashdot Mirror
Apple Hardware VP Defends Benchmarks
He said Veritest used gcc for both platforms, instead of Intel's compiler, simply because the benchmarks measure two things at the same time: compiler, and hardware. To test the hardware alone, you must normalize the compiler out of the equation -- using the same version and similar settings -- and, if anything, Joswiak said, gcc has been available on the Intel platform for a lot longer and is more optimized for Intel than for PowerPC.
He conceded readily that the Dell numbers would be higher with the Intel compiler, but that the Apple numbers could be higher with a different compiler too.
Joswiak added that in the Intel modifications for the tests, they chose the option that provided higher scores for the Intel machine, not lower. The scores were higher under Linux than under Windows, and in the rate test, the scores were higher with hyperthreading disabled than enabled. He also said they would be happy to do the tests on Windows and with hyperthreading enabled, if people wanted it, as it would only make the G5 look better.
In the G5 modifications, they were made because shipping systems will have those options available. For example, memory read bypass was turned on, for even though it is not on by default in the tested prototypes, it will be on by default for the shipping systems. Software-based prefetching was turned off and a high-performance malloc was used because those options will be available on the shipping systems (Joswiak did not know whether this malloc, which is faster but less memory efficient, will be the default in the shipping systems).
As to not using SSE2, Joswiak said they enabled the correct flags for it, as documented on the gcc web site, so that SSE2 was enabled (the Veritest report lists the options used for each test, which appears to include the appropriate flags).
This is the first time I think _I_ have seen slashdot with an article they wrote compltely on their own.
Did you recieve a phone call directly or something(Apple calling Slashdot)? If so did they act really aggressive wanting to make sure people don't become anti-G5 before it is even shipped?
Not too important you might say, but interests me.
tilTrue.info contechtext.info prettypowerful.info twitter.com/frets fb.com/prosody
Okay, so Apple needs the G5 to succeed in order to survive. Motorola just aren't sending out the chip upgrades fast enough. They (Motorola) have enough other problems in their wide range of markets that they're in that not having to worry about CPU competition is probably a good thing as far as they're concerned.
The fact that the (almost) top person at Apple has made this clarification shows how much importance they're putting against these claims. Given that nobody else has had a chance to verify yet, and people are making wild speculations based off of paper and a lack of understanding, it's probably just as well that they're putting a positive spin on things.
Maybe the documents should have been clearer, showing why these configuration decisions were taken.
The "we had to use GCC" argument is a little strange though; is there any other good compiler available for the PPC at the moment? if so, I'd like to know; I use macs myself!
Like, the switch -mfpmath=sse when used in a P4 *does* use SSE2, but this guy thought just cause the switch flag says sse that it must be SSE only.
Then someone else (can't find the post, on usenet, under the mac advocacy group) pointed out that Dell's SPEC tests also disabled hyperthreading.
Then, based on this person's web page who no one even knows who he is, they start drawing conclusions that if Apple faked these (based on his flawed analysis), that they also must have faked those Adobe, Mathmatica, and other demos -- despite the execs for those companies being on stage also confirming the results.
Gotta love the net...
As for me, I don't know what to believe. I'm just going to patiently wait until some reputable sites spend a lot of time and do an in depth analysis and their own benchmarks, like Tom's Hardware for example. Then I may start drawing my own conclusions.
As for me, all I want is to be able to encode mpeg video at something greater than real time. Show me *that* benchmark please!
If my car has 200HP at 6,800RPM on the sticker, I usually donâ(TM)t take the stickers word for it, but trust that I would get around those numbers on average.
There are those people who want to know if those numbers are EXACT 101% of the time, so they go bust out their dynamometer and begin writing complaint letters when their engine only hits 195HP.
I think benchmarks these days are no longer a science that they used to be. There are far, far, FAR too many hardware and software variables to do an accurate cross-platform analysis and comparison.
I mean, is it really logical to compare Apples (har har har) to Oranges? I mean, most all applications that will be running on the G5 will be optimized for the G5. So does it matter how a 'comparable' application will run on x86? No, because the x86 Application might have a few more optimizations which would make the comparison pointless.
These days people should take benchmarks with a grain of salt. Just another selling point they'll put on the big list of bulleted marketing jargon on the back of the box to try and rope in first time buyers who are turned on by big acronyms and high-tech sounding words.
So yeah, I think people just need to cool their heels and take this for what it is, just marketing propaganda. Does QuantiSpeed really make your CDs burn faster? No. Does the P4 make âthe internetâ(TM) faster? No. Just take it for what it is and let it go.
What about the new 3.2's?
You mean the new chips from Intel that were announced the same day as the G5s?
Shit, some people you can never please.
sin(6cos(r)+5A)
Humm... you must have missed the part of the keynote where they priced a similarly equipped dual 3.06GHZ Xeon system from Dell and found it cost about $1,000 more than a dual G5 PowerMac. You can check the Dell web site yourself. Don't forget that the G5 has superior point-to point-bus, hypertransport and much faster memory access that the Dell system as well. The spec mark won't show you that.
Pricing on the lower end models are not as aggressive, but for what you get, it's still reasonable.
Apple did.
Apple 2x2 G5: $3000
Dell (2x3.06 Xenon): $4000
Mac speed in "real world" application tests, about 2x as fast as the Dell.
Dell = $4000/work unit
Mac G5 = $1500/work unit
The Mac G5 is a much better value on cost on a price/performance basis.
Or were you thinking of something else?
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Even if Apple is faster than Wintel, the Price:Performance ratio is horrible for Apple hardware and software.
I think this is the one time where Apple hardware hasn't been "horribly" priced. A 64bit dual-2Ghz workstation with SATA HDD, DVD-R, PCI-X, a 1 GHz FSB and a max of 8GB of DDR-RAM for under $3000.
As for software, that comment is just pure ignorance. 50% of the stuff they make is free, and the other software is all competitively priced. What software from Apple is overpriced?
sin(6cos(r)+5A)
I use a 667MHz Powerbook with a G4 that is nowhere near as fast as modern P4's and the PPC 970, but I love this machine and I love this OS. I also have a Dell laptop with a 2GHz P4 and WinXP and an old 450MHz K6-2 that runs Debian. I use all of them but mostly prefer this Mac and OSX.
What mostly surprises me is that so many people feel this desperate burning need to flame computers that are not the same as the ones they have, and operating systems they do not use. Is there a genuine need to diss the PPC 970, when it seems that it is truly -at the very least- in the same performance area as Intels modern CPU's? Why? No one is forcing you, as a x86 Linux, *BSD or Windows user to buy a Mac. Yet you feel the need, now that the CPU is in the same region performance wise to complain about the prices. And again, no one is forcing you to pay those prices or to buy a Mac if you prefer x86 machines.
The x86 machines I have, in one case -the Dell laptop- outperforms my Mac by a healthy margin, yet I find the Dell to have pretty poor workmanship and although I actually find WindowsXP the best Windows version I have ever used, and quite stable to boot, I don't like the way the OS seems to lack a sense of continuity.
I paid more for this Mac than I would ever have paid for a PC laptop of the same performance, but the look, feel and feeling of "good design" is what made me buy this Mac. I don't regret that money at all.
Would I diss x86 if it were slower and more pricy than a similar PPC? No. There are the advantages of larger choice and lower prices that still count and shouldn't be laughed at.
Each to his own.
But envy seems to be a common sin here.
- Tom's was using Q3A 1.16 instead of 1.32 (PunkBuster code is thought to be a little slower)
- Tom's used set s_initsound 0 to disable sound while Apple noted default settings, which would imply sound was left on.
- Tom's used demo_001 while Apple used demo_4
So I guess it's up to you to decide in the end if the benchmark was fair or no. I don't know enough about the details of Q3A to say whether the differences above are enough to justify a 30% decrease in framerate. It is worth pointing out that Apple's G5 matched Tom's reported framerates for the fastest Athlon XP.Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
The G5 will be available on September 1st. The Athlon64 will be available in the same month. With both processors purported to bring 64 bit to the desktop, it would seem the Athlon 64 would be more appropriate to compete with rather than the Xeon.
I used a DOS machine from '85-'91 and thought it was pretty hot shit. When I started college in the fall of '91, the school required incoming students to have access to a Mac.
Since my existing computer was then almost six years old and showing its age, my parents opted to loosen the purse strings and buy me a Macintosh LC. Within fifteen minutes of getting it out of the box and up and running, I knew I was gonna be a Mac user for life (sorry, Apple-haters, but there was no consumption of Kool-Aid involved). Not long after that I got my first look at Windows 3.1, and I couldn't believe what a half-assed Mac knockoff it was. Microsoft has made great strides with Windows over the years, but they still can't touch the synergy between hardware and software that Apple achieves. That synergy means much more to me than raw speed, and I'm more than happy to pay for it.
Therein is the basis for the holy wars, IMHO: The Mac people don't understand why the Windows users are eating dogfood when they could be having filet mignon, and the Windows people don't understand why anyone would choose to pay more for a computer that they perceive as working the pretty much the same as a much cheaper Windows box.
These days, I make my living as a system integrator. I support Windows and Macs, but specialize in Macs-- slightly difficult because my Mac clients seldom need me. I own several Macs and a couple PCs, but my main machines are a G4 and an iBook-- after a long day dealing with Windows (which "just stops working" from time to time), it's damned nice to come home and use my Macs (which "just work"). In my experience, more often than not, people who have really used both OSes for an appreciable amount of time prefer the Mac.
~Philly
For some people, e.g. physicists who do numerical "experiments", the benchmarks are crucial, or, at least, a large factor when considering which machine to buy.
Sure, one could buy 10 Linare boxes and Beowulf them together, but if you're a lone physicist with relatively little funding--Beowulf clusters take lots of time, money, and space to feed and maintain--you might care about being able to run floating-point intensive jobs quickly while being able to use MS Word or PowerPoint or some such.
In fact, I already know one astrophysicist who will be getting a G5 in the fall when her new research grant begins. She also happens to be one of the 3 physicists I managed to convince to switch to Mac and get a PowerBook.
This is a tautology.
They have used a third party with full disclosure, selected options (SSE2, no hyper threading, Linux instead of Windows) to give higher scores to the Dell. How fair is that?
/. readers are more sophisticated than just focusing on the manufactured numbers. There are far more important factors to consider, and the G5 is 200 - 700% faster than the Dell in running real-world apps like PhotoShop, Logic, Mathematica, BLAST, HMMer, etc.
The whole benchmark industry has been created by the like of Intel and Dell for marketing purpose only. I expect the average