Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

G5 vs. x86 and Mac OS X vs. Linux

Posted by Zonk on from the head-to-head dept.

demonbug writes "Anandtech has an article up comparing performance of dual G5s to AMD Opteron and Intel Xeon workstations. The article also takes a look at performance under Mac OS X versus Linux. It provides an interesting look at some of the strengths and weaknesses of the different CPUs." From the article: "This article is written solely from the frustration that I could not get a clear picture on what the G5 and Mac OS X are capable of. So, be warned; this is not an all-round review. It is definitely the worst buyer's guide that you can imagine. This article cares about speed, performance, and nothing else! No comments on how well designed the internals are, no elaborate discussions about user friendliness, out-of-the-box experience and other subjective subjects. But we think that you should have a decent insight to where the G5/Mac OS X combination positions itself when compared to the Intel & AMD world at the end of this article."

9 of 486 comments (clear)

  1. No PowerPC Linux in the Review?! by Noksagt · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The article also takes a look at performance under OSX versus Linux.
    They look at PowerPC running Darwin 8.1 and two Xeons and an Opteron running Linux 2.4/2.6. Why not show the PowerPC running Linux?! I want to see how Linux on PPC compares to Linux on x386 these days!

    Anyway..here's the article summary:
    Mac OS X is incredibly slow, between 2 and 5(!) times slower, in creating new threads, as it doesn't use kernel threads, and has to go through extra layers (wrappers). No need to continue our search: the G5 might not be the fastest integer CPU on earth - its database performance is completely crippled by an asthmatic operating system that needs up to 5 times more time to handle and create threads.
    So, forget OS X in the server room, but have fun if you want a desktop OS.
    1. Re:No PowerPC Linux in the Review?! by lederhosen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I totaly agree that they should have done a comparison using Linux/PPC.

      I would allso like to see them use the latest Intel compiler.

      I dont, however, agree on the microkernel stuff. darwin is no microkernel design at all, all the
      driver, filesystem and memory management is done
      in kernel space. There is nothing in that design that makes the OS more stable.

  2. Flawed comparison by Amoeba · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This comparison is flawed. A more direct comparison that would have resulted in better information would have been Mac/OS X vs. x86/BSD.

    What performance is he measuring? The hardware or the OS? Comparing both with no baseline control for each is about as informative as pulling numbers out of my ass.

    --
    Do not taunt Happy-Fun Ball
    1. Re:Flawed comparison by Medievalist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That comparison is easy. OSX hacks a BSD kernel into a Mach microkernel, and thus performance is nearly as bad as Mach despite the existence of the mature, standardized interfaces of a BSD.

      MacOSX is not about performance. It's about interface. I don't think Apple (or Next for that matter) has ever tried to deny their intention to overcome the performance problems caused by tremendously complex software through the use of immensely powerful hardware.

  3. Re:Where's the Apples to Apples comparison? by pkhuong · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Agreed. Once they'd found that the kernel was crumbling when there were lots of threads, why did they not try the same tests on Linux/PPC?

    --
    Try Corewar @ www.koth.org - rec.games.corewar
  4. Apples to Oranges (this is not redundant... yet) by UnapprovedThought · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As some people have pointed out (but not completely), you should be comparing:

    • PPC vs. x86 on Linux, or
    • PPC vs. x86 on BSD, or
    • Linux vs. OSX on PPC, or
    • Linux vs. OSX on x86(!), or
    • OSX vs. Windohs on PPC, or
    • OSX vs. Windohs on x86
    • x86 vs. PPC for TPM/DRM BS
    • PPC Altivec vs. x86 SSE3 on Linux

    Linux forks 5 times faster than BSD, but that's been known for years. You didn't need a new benchmark/ad for that. Finally, the article doesn't have a benchmark that uses Altivec to its full potential, so it might be a hack piece as well.

  5. They lost me right here... by mark_wilkins · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Thirdly, hardcore gamers are not the ones buying Apples, but rather, creative professionals.

    So, we focus on workstation and server applications..."

    How could anyone who has ever met a "creative professional" think they care about "workstation and server applications" like MySQL and Apache??

    Sorry, guys, but being a sysadmin does not make you a "creative professional..."

    -- Mark

  6. Re:Wooohooo by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A comment can't be homophobic, only a person can.

    I am not homophobic, and I see the humor in the joke you are replying to. It's called absurd humor... half the joke is in the stereotyping. Macs are stereotypically the favorite computer of gays, and Linux geeks have a strong correlation with the "dirty hippie" and "pinko commie" crowd.

    So don't get your panties all in a bunch.

    (I'm assuming you're either a P.C. blowhard, or a homo. See, wasn't that funny?)

    --
    Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
  7. Re:MacGCC? by mr_burns · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apple actually does work on GCC and it gives patches back to the project. The way they do this was actually used as a counterexample in the recent khtml/webcore spat.

    I think that a better choice on OS X Tigger would have been GCC 4 for this test, as that's what the OS is built with and it's the native compiler for the OS.. IIRC.

    --
    "Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)