On CNET: 100 Days of Deals
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 31 of 36:
Next »
« Previous
Test it against Athlon64!
As many of us already know - none of the benchmarks that proclaim Apple as the fastest PC were run against AMD processors. The Opteron was out months before the G5 - so the G5 wasn't even the first 64/32 bit processor available. Hypertransport, which Apple uses, was an AMD invention. We know how much the AthlonXP smoked the G4 in Photoshop and I expect we'll see the same when Adobe has a patch for the Athlon64.
I think it's funny that Apple claims they have the best hardware - while they simply borrow from the best PC hardware manufacturers. The only benchmarks I've seen for the Athlon64 against a G5 show the G5 getting trounced by a single-proc AMD64. The on-die memory controller is the reason why the Athlon64 is the faster processor. Neither the G5 or P4 possess this technology that removes a major bottleneck in PC and Mac design. Also, Apple never stands to win a gaming benchmark as long as all the best video and sound cards are available on PC's much, much (at least a year) sooner than on the Mac. The Audigy2 is still not available on Mac. Fact is, Apple has a more competitive offering performance-wise - but PC's still hold the bleeding-edge speed crown. No Apple-generated theoretical, non-real world BS will change that. Maybe things will get more interesting when 64 bit code is running on both of these platforms early next year. In the meantime I'm happy that someone noticed Apple was lying. If they wanted to prove they were really faster than the P4 they would run something other than an optimized Photoshop and more real applications - all while not disabling all the optimizations that make the P4 a faster processor running real, available software.
Posted by: zeusfuse   Posted on: 11/12/03 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Smart ITC people  FirstNLastN | 11/11/03
agree  lmaxwell | 11/11/03
Who's next, BA?  Fred Fredrickson | 11/11/03
Smart ITC people, indeed..  d_jedi | 11/11/03
whatever sells...  tooner440 | 11/11/03
re: whatever sells...  tooner440 | 11/11/03
Ditch the markup  Fred Fredrickson | 11/11/03
thanks  tooner440 | 11/18/03
reposting...  tooner440 | 11/18/03
and one more time...  tooner440 | 11/18/03
Thanks....  Palmyra | 11/11/03
That's M$ hand again!  screaming silence | 11/11/03
That's MS Hand Again!  wadeprater | 11/11/03
things are changing  lmaxwell | 11/11/03
Oh, so I guess....  BitTwiddler | 11/11/03
2.5 times slower & more expensive G5, but Apple is happy.  Vily Clay | 11/11/03
2.5 times slower? wrong  theo_durcan | 11/11/03
Poor Comparisons  Harry Bardal | 11/11/03
why only compare to intel  zijiang | 11/11/03
Yes, everything is relative but we have what we have.  Vily Clay | 11/11/03
Agree to disagree  mds_z | 11/13/03
You have a link to the article?  Rick_K | 11/11/03
Is Macworld journal Dec. 2003 too expensive for you?  Vily Clay | 11/11/03
Vily clueless as usual  bgoss@... | 11/11/03
Look in the mirror first and then read the links.  Vily Clay | 11/11/03
You still have no proof  Fred Fredrickson | 11/11/03
Are you too poor to buy Macworld Dec 2003?  Vily Clay | 11/12/03
What problem?  altereqo | 11/11/03
Yes, if Mac would be the cheapest - no problems.  Vily Clay | 11/12/03
Time to boycott U.K., ehh  FilledOut | 11/12/03
Test it against Athlon64!  zeusfuse | 11/12/03
Best Hardware  issthatso | 11/12/03
RE: Test it against the Athlon 64  JakAttak | 11/12/03
What computer can you buy right now....  mlindl | 11/12/03
What is the difference between a workstation..  mlindl | 11/12/03
$13,000.00 Apple PC  boatelc | 11/13/03

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here