LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Linux Power User Bundle
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 12-22-2003, 10:43 PM   #1
MasterC
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2002
Location: Salt Lake City, UT - USA
Distribution: Gentoo ; LFS ; Kubuntu
Posts: 12,612

Rep: Reputation: 68
G5 was beaten by a P4?


I'm actually looking for either confirmation or complete lack of wrt this post. I was inspired and reminded by this thread's title:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...hreadid=127983
Of a conversation I had about a week ago in Compusa. Apparently, in MacAddict, there was an article talking about a contest between the latest and greatest Alienware PC, and a Mac G5. And the vagueness of this conversations went as follows:
Dude: "My buddy, who is a Mac freak, said that in MacAddict last month, there was an article that said that the G5 was slaughtered in all categories of testing with the exception of Mpeg rendering."
Me: "Lies!"
Dude: "Nope."
Me: "I don't believe it."
And then it trailed off like that, with a few lies here and there, but that's the gist. Anyone read this article, or know of something that will back up either side? WIll our caped crusader be pummeled to smitherins? Find out next week when...

Cool
 
Old 12-22-2003, 11:01 PM   #2
trickykid
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2001
Posts: 24,149

Rep: Reputation: 252Reputation: 252Reputation: 252
From my experience in messing with Mac's, they are just solid machines, seem faster, more reliable and so on.
Its just like running Solaris on a Sun machine, just feels good.

PC's with the Intel architecture, etc, were made for one reason to me, a comparitive alternative to battle the spot for the Home PC market. Reason they won, people liked the idea of having a little more control and cheaper prices since anyone was or able to build and make products for the PC compared to the Mac which gave a little more competition to lower costs.

Would I buy a Mac or Sun machine over x86 platform or PC, hell yah if I had the money.

My two cents.

Last edited by trickykid; 12-23-2003 at 08:56 AM.
 
Old 12-23-2003, 12:30 AM   #3
neo77777
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Distribution: *NIX
Posts: 3,704

Rep: Reputation: 56
Hey Chad and Drew,
I was pocking around pcworld mag website just a minute before I went to LQ to see what's up and I came along your post. I don't know how P4 (32-bit) fairs against G5 (64-bit) but if it were in the same bit-by-bit category I'd compare AMD's Opteron vs Mac G5, well this is what this article at pcworld is about http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/...49,pg,7,00.asp
Personaly, I've been using both 32-bit (intel based) systems and 64-bit (of course SPARC), and even the old ULTRA 10 running at misarebale (to some extent) 360 MHz with 256 MB of RAM beats by a slight margin (and I am not exaggerating) my 32-bit 850 MHz Athlon system with 512 MB of RAM, espacially in memory intesive tasks - Squid Cache Proxy could be a fair benchmark. Of course, I might add that SPARC uses swap space in a slightly different aspect than an Intel system, so the Sun system has 1024 MB of swap to its advantage vs 512 MB of swap on the Intel running Slackware.
P.S. I haven't finished reading the article at pcworld and on the last page they have a table comparing times it takes for G5 and AMD to run certain apps and FPS in the standard benchmark - QuakeIII, the last system in the list is indeed Pentium 4.

Last edited by neo77777; 12-23-2003 at 12:36 AM.
 
Old 12-23-2003, 12:45 AM   #4
Whitehat
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: The Cold North
Distribution: SuSE 9.1
Posts: 1,289

Rep: Reputation: 46
I have the PCWorld issue in hand and you can tell that they are way biased. I have seen and used a brand new P4 and have also used a Dual G5 2.0GHz Mac. The Mac makes the P4 look like a 486. The Dual G5 Mac is better in all ways (in my opinion).

I get so tired of these Mags siding with whomever will put money in their pocket......

Why do you think that most of the time Dell comes out on top? Look at who has the most ads in the mag.....Coincidence? I think not.
 
Old 12-23-2003, 01:02 AM   #5
neo77777
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Distribution: *NIX
Posts: 3,704

Rep: Reputation: 56
I might agree with you, David. I could see the same trend of preference in every magazine for this matter, be it a computer magazine or a car magazine - opinions are biased, but in my opinion this article is a somewhat fair comparision in the 64-bit computer processing running 32-bit applications. It is indeed pointless to compare 32-bit processor wih 64-bit processor hardware wise running aps designed for 32-bit CPU's!!! Unfortunately, software side for 64-bit processing on Mac and PC isn't that broad comparing to 32-bit. On the otehr hand, I would rether seek the most fair competition for Mac vs PC on 64-bit running in true 64-bit environment.
P.S. One of the items on my wish list this Holiday season is an Opteron system with a cool 19" Samsung LCD running *NIX, but I decided to leave it in my wish list for at least another 6 month .

Last edited by neo77777; 12-23-2003 at 01:04 AM.
 
Old 12-23-2003, 07:56 AM   #6
johnleemk
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: Malaysia
Distribution: Slackware 9.1
Posts: 145

Rep: Reputation: 15
I've seen other articles showing how Apple fudged benchmarks in their favour against other 64-bit processors, but can't remember where.
 
Old 12-23-2003, 08:20 AM   #7
ballabh
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: new delhi, india
Distribution: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Desktop
Posts: 21

Rep: Reputation: 0
well, as i trouble shoot on mac and pc platform, i can tell you that a mac is a mac anyways, it's so much cleaner than a windows system, also you never know, benchmarks are not allways true (i do not want to issue a politically incorrect statement ;-) )
but when i run games on my mac g5(single processor) with a nvidia gforce FX 5200 ultra, and my athlon 2600 xp with gforce fx 5200ultra,
i observe that the speed and smoothness is much better on the athlon though.
 
Old 12-23-2003, 09:46 AM   #8
hard candy
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Distribution: Slackware Current (or was it yesterday?)
Posts: 11

Rep: Reputation: 0
MaximumPC had a head to head competition with G5 vs Athlon64 vs Pentium 4. They asked Macaddict to help set up the benchmarks. The G5 sucked wind bigtime. $3500 for the slowest computer (monitor not included!).
As far as I'm concerned, if Microsoft hadn't come along and Apple was numero uno, we would be still using 1996 hardware in 2003. Apple computers is the most closed source company of all- not only is the software closed source but the hardware too. Thanks to the vision of Mr. Jobs, Apple is destined to slip behind and be in 4th place in the desktop market behind Microsoft, Linux, and Xbox!
The excuse for the poor showing of the G5 was that the software was not compiled for the architecture. So I'm to buy a computer that costs an arm and a leg, runs slower than cheaper computers, doesn't run current software correctly,
and is impossible to upgrade??? Apple computer is so full of crap it could go into the sewage business.
G5 vs Athlon vs P4
 
Old 12-24-2003, 03:42 AM   #9
MasterC
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2002
Location: Salt Lake City, UT - USA
Distribution: Gentoo ; LFS ; Kubuntu
Posts: 12,612

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 68
Excellent replies, thank you for all the info

Cool
 
Old 12-24-2003, 03:39 PM   #10
jcookeman
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: London, UK
Distribution: FreeBSD, OpenSuse, Ubuntu, RHEL
Posts: 417

Rep: Reputation: 33
Quote:
The G5 sucked wind bigtime.
Sorry, but I don't believe everything that I see. I will have to read how they setup and what the used for their tests. But, physics doesn't lie. The G5 has 33% more CPU to memory bandwidth than the P4 (last I saw anyway, this crap changes daily).

Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, if Microsoft hadn't come along and Apple was numero uno, we would be still using 1996 hardware in 2003.
That is probably true, but that is called capitalism and competition. If the situation were reversed it would be true as well. That is why we need Microsoft, Linux, Apple and BSD.

Quote:
Apple computers is the most closed source company of all- not only is the software closed source but the hardware too.
That is bull! OS X source is available. Mac uses open architecture just like everone else. You think Intel is going to publish the schematics to their chip?

Quote:
Apple computer is so full of crap it could go into the sewage business.
You're post is filled with narrow-minded anti Apple rhetoric. It is obvious that you do not like Apple, that is your choice, but you need to choose your words wisely. Your post leaves a sour taste in my mouth and undermines your intelligence.

Last edited by jcookeman; 12-24-2003 at 03:46 PM.
 
Old 12-24-2003, 04:48 PM   #11
320mb
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: pikes peak
Distribution: Slackware, LFS
Posts: 2,577

Rep: Reputation: 48
Quote:
Originally posted by jcookeman

Mac uses open architecture just like everone else. You think Intel is going to publish the schematics to their chip?

Why don't YOU show us where Mac publishes its chip schematics!!
 
Old 12-24-2003, 05:03 PM   #12
jcookeman
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: London, UK
Distribution: FreeBSD, OpenSuse, Ubuntu, RHEL
Posts: 417

Rep: Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally posted by 320mb
Why don't YOU show us where Mac publishes its chip schematics!!
I never said that Apple publishes their chip schematics. Apple does not make "their" chips. However, Apple does publish the OS X source and their architecture uses open standards like AGP, IDE, ATAPI, PCI and SDRAM. I don't see how you can get away with saying Apple is as proprietary as they come, because they are not. Don't post when you don't know what you are talking about.
 
Old 12-24-2003, 09:33 PM   #13
teval
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 720

Rep: Reputation: 30
Not having read the thread, except the first post. Those benchmakrs are wrong. The code was optimised differently, and was slighty different. The programs used are too different, and one of them is discontinued for Mac.
The same fate met the PCWold benchmarks too.
 
Old 12-24-2003, 09:54 PM   #14
Baldorg
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: GMT (-5)
Distribution: Mandrake 9.1
Posts: 288

Rep: Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally posted by trickykid
From my experience in messing with Mac's, they are just solid machines, seem faster, more reliable and so on.
Its just like running Solaris on a Sun machine, just feels good.

PC's with the Intel architecture, etc, were made for one reason to me, a comparitive alternative to battle the spot for the Home PC market. Reason they won, people liked the idea of having a little more control and cheaper prices since anyone was or able to build and make products for the PC compared to the Mac which gave a little more competition to lower costs.

Would I buy a Mac or Sun machine over x86 platform or PC, hell yah if I had the money.

My two cents.
Solaris and Sun would have been good in like, 1989, but now, they are out of date.

Solaris = Proprietary, closed and private. No room for user made improvements.

Sun machines are like Mac machines : Low end ones are under-rammed and have shitty hardware, like 7200 rpm IDE HDDS. I thought UNIX workstations were supposed to have SCSI disks ! Sure, if you go high en ( 10000$ and up) You can get very proefficient computers.

Running Solaris on a Sun machine feels good because the Software is optimised for the Hardware. Would it be the same if you threw another OS in it to see the true power of the machine? I don't think so. Same example as Pentium 4, AMD Athlon XP and Windows XP...

And I thought Macintosh were PC's too.

Quote:
Sorry, but I don't believe everything that I see. I will have to read how they setup and what the used for their tests. But, physics doesn't lie. The G5 has 33% more CPU to memory bandwidth than the P4 (last I saw anyway, this crap changes daily).
33%? Show me valid benchmarks. No fake ones mind you.

Quote:
I've seen other articles showing how Apple fudged benchmarks in their favour against other 64-bit processors, but can't remember where.
TPC, HG.
http://www.overclockers.com/tips00408
http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.c...id=1296&page=2
http://www.overclockers.com/tips00409

Last edited by Baldorg; 12-24-2003 at 09:59 PM.
 
Old 12-24-2003, 10:51 PM   #15
itsjustme
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Earth
Distribution: Slackware, Ubuntu, Smoothwall
Posts: 1,571

Rep: Reputation: 45
Quote:
Originally posted by trickykid
Its just like running Solaris on a Sun machine, just feels good.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The beagle has beaten me :( in 9.3 dasbooter SUSE / openSUSE 4 09-13-2005 04:30 AM
CDROM mounting has beaten me =( kaz4u2dig Linux - Newbie 20 01-22-2004 07:00 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:29 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration