For people undecided About getting a MAc or nOT


Recommended Posts

rommi, u would never be able to beat out WickedKitten in an arguement for PC's vs Macs since i've seen her debate quiet a bit b4 n she won most of the them so far that i remember of

Well, she lost this one ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A single x86 cpu beats a G4 Motorola 7500 Altivec 128bit?

Eat **** idiot!

What do you make of this then Cunjo, sorry Cuzzo:

http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html

Bare in mind, its from one of your Maccy sites :-)

Also bear in mind, thats a 1.4 athlon.

Today Athlons and P4's are 2gig+

And a G4 is where ?

So, you argument is "eat ****", well done Cuzzo, give yourself a pat on the back for being the dumbest troll in the history of the internet LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to think just like rommi. Never liked Macs because I thought they were expensive, didn't have the games, not much for software, were slower etc etc etc. But I have done quite a bit of reading the past month or so on Macs, and I can honestly say that I have no choice but to get a Mac...a powermac actually...and sell my pc. I really had no idea about Macs. All my earlier assumptions (that I THOUGHT were facts) were wrong.

Rommi....coming from the same mentality as you, I can honestly say you have no idea what you are talking about.

Well, im not coming from mentality, im coming from experience.

All you have done is read a magazine, I support Macs/PC/Mini/Midi/Mainframe, in fact everything, and have been using computers for 21 years, and have used macs since Lisa. So stop presuming you know what I am.

As I can say that any pc user who holds the same assumptions that I used to have, has never done any reading or have never used a mac. Couple of my closests friends absolutely hate macs...but they claim the same things rommi does. they've hardly used a mac (maybe a couple years ago for 10 minutes), never done any research.

Go ahead buy a Mac, thats your choice.

Just dont claim its "Better" cos it aint.

And Rommi, you are losing this debate. wicketkitten has really taken it to you.
No, you think that way, cos I am direct, and you are a Mac wanna be. I have given 3 main reasons why a PC is a more prudent purchase for a consumer, and they are all correct.
So far you've quoted a benchmark that no one accepts as accurate and have proven to everyone that you don't know what you are talking about.

Er, ou obviously haven't read the thread then.

The CT benchmark doesn't use the seconds CPU.

BUT, it does show, that a single G4 at the same clock as P3 is weaker. a P4 at its native clock, is going to be over (read OVER) 2 times as fast, so even with perfectly scaling SMP dual G4's with no SMP overhead, it would be less than a single P4 or Athlon of 2 gig range.

Ive also posted a second link at Barefacts, a Mac site, which shows from an application benchmark, a single x86 CPU keeping up with a dual G4 at 1.4, most commodity x86 CPUs are now at around 1.7gig, so would win.

This is not even comparing a dual MP athlon system which would still be cheaper to build than a dual g4 Mac.

Keeping digging bud....keep diggin.

All you and your Mac friends can say is:

"oh thats rubbish"

"oh you cant win this argument"

Ive given you 2 references to simple fact, yet you cannot produce either a) a credible alternative set of figures or b) even academic theory on why a Mac is faster.

You've conceded yourself in your little missive, that there is more software available to BUY for a PC, and there is a LOT MORE, to swap with people at work etc because there are MORE PC owners out there.

Then there is price, a Mac is more expensive, also conceded by WickedKitten who says "thats why not everyone can have one, like a mercedes" etc.

So, you MAc owners concede on price, software availability.

Benchmarks are a very hard thing to "prove" because is so relative to the task, but with a little thought and research you can see that a dual G4 is a dual because a single G4 is no match for x86, and even a dual G4, which yes, will probably do what you want it do, but will not best a P4 2.2Gig in ANY performance test.

Good luck with your Mac purchase though. I wish you well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the page you linked to, Rommi, has some interesting facts:

1. re: Bryce test: "Although Corel claims it has been carbonized for OS X, but the rendering code does NOT take advantage of the G4 or multiple processors." Despite this, the Dual G4 nearly matches the 1.4...

2. The person doing the tests is running them on borrowed PCs and Macs, and on machines which are sitting out on the floor of a computer retailer. Not an encouraging fact for anyone interested in true and fair comparisons.

3. The Quake 3 test pits a G4 with a Geforce 4 MX and/or a Geforce 3 against an Athlon with a Geforce 4 Ti, big goof if you ask me, never mind the fact that Quake 3's support for dual CPUs is open to debate.

there's more, but I think the above facts will suffice to prove the point:

you will use any bunch of facts you can dredge up from the depths of stupidity to make a weak point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by rommi

I support Macs/PC/Mini/Midi/Mainframe, in fact everything, and have been using computers for 21 years, and have used macs since Lisa

that's the point, you are relying on old facts, distorted facts, and prejudice...plus, your two references to "facts" have been roundly and thoroughly DEBUNKED. as was said previously, keep digging...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite this, the Dual G4 nearly matches the 1.4...

Exactly. Nearly matched a single. In the real world a dual Mac CPU "nearly matches" a single and much cheaper x86 CPU, well done, you prove my point yourself.
The person doing the tests is running them on borrowed PCs and Macs, and on machines which are sitting out on the floor of a computer retailer. Not an encouraging fact for anyone interested in true and fair comparisons.

Its hardly scientific is it. Yet, there is tons of performance indicators around the net for x86 CPU's, you'll find hardly any for G4's, because its too embaressing to print.

The Quake 3 test pits a G4 with a Geforce 4 MX and/or a Geforce 3 against an Athlon with a Geforce 4 Ti, big goof if you ask me, never mind the fact that Quake 3's support for dual CPUs is open to debate.
Oh look a Mac person selectively quoting.(shock) From the actual bit you just read:

Athlon 1.67 GEF3 196

Dual G4 GEF3 156

Same grafix card no ?

As I tried to explain , a SMP system does NOT scale linearly most of the time. The best you can hope for, is around 40-60% increase with the second CPU.

To prove this point, here is a link to your own manufacturers site LOL, and to suggest that John Carmack can't code properly, only removes what little credability you didnt have.

http://www.apple.com/powermac/graphics.html

(oh look 40% increase)

you will use any bunch of facts you can dredge up from the depths of stupidity to make a weak point.

Well, they are not my tests. But feel free to go to Apple and tell them their own Quake 3 benchmarks are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dual G4 nearly matched the intel system, even though the Corel software used in the benchmark did not use the second processor.

Also your bit about "Well, they are not my tests. But feel free to go to Apple and tell them their own Quake 3 benchmarks are wrong." ??? the site you linked to is not Apple, it's some guy who apparently likes to run benchmarks. I don't recall seeing anything on his site implying endorsement by Apple.

"Yet, there is tons of performance indicators around the net for x86 CPU's, you'll find hardly any for G4's, because its too embaressing to print." ??? then quote them dumbass, so far every set of benchmarks you've pointed to has had serious flaws in the methodology.

Same graphics card? Read it again. The Athlon that supposedly trounces the Dual G4 is using a Geforce 4 Ti, not a Geforce 3.

"As I tried to explain , a SMP system does NOT scale linearly most of the time. The best you can hope for, is around 40-60% increase with the second CPU." ??? You seem to use this line a lot, as if it is some kind of mantra. This indicates that it is some fact you have dug up somewhere and keep using it to sound like you know what your talking about. Like you said, I don't give a rats ass about whether it scales linearly or not, and I never said it did matter. I have only endeavoured (sorry if I am using language that is outside of your comprehension, but I will not dumb myself down for someone who is so obviously a jerkoff) to point out that the sets of benchmarks you are offering are worthless.

Keep trying though. It appears you are a sucker for punishment.

2 more points: has it occured to you that it is strange, on a site dominated nearly entirely by Intel and AMD users, no one has come to your defense?

and, I simply do not believe that you have as much experience as you say you do. Your comprehension is far below what I have seen in people with far less experience than you claim to have. I am a newbie myself, and I have no trouble at all seeing through your specious arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i just noticed the link to Apple.com. Really helpful for supporting your tired "SMP systems do not scale linearly" line, but that's it. It shows nothing about the issue at hand, only that dual processors on a G4 system will give you better performance in Q3A...duh, i never would have guessed that...

I have no issues with Carmack, in fact If I remember correctly, Q3A was released 1st for the Mac, maybe only by a short time, but ya, Carmack likes Macs. How does that help your argument again?

That non-linear scalability does not take into account the other features in a G4 system that Wickedkitten and others have described at great length. Give it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic, Mac vs. PC's, is as touchy of a subject (if not more) as religion. I appreciate the lengthy work of some of the research here, but it doesn't add up to anything but "mute" points. First of all, when a conversation gets personal, and a reply consisting of many "*" comes into play, that doesn't mean you won the debate and the other is just being ignorant (i.e. Wicketkitten,) it just means that the conversation has gone too far.

Personally, I would like to hear people's responses as to why they don't like Macs, Windows, Linux, etc. from a user stand point, not a technical one. I use a Mac and a PC at work in a support environment. I don't like Macs very much, because quite frankly, my job has ruined the experience for me. It is extremely hard for developers to write optimized programs for it when the first major patch for it changes the libraries and forces a complete recode of existing carbon software, regardless of the technical advantages this gave, it seems like it was incredibly poor foresight on Apple's end. Personally, I have been using a PC for over 6 years, so I do have a hard time switching over to a Mac because I don't know it, and I really don't want to learn how. I like Windows. Second, I have never paid any attention to the benchmarks. I was very impressed with speed of a G4, but that still is not going to make me say it was any faster, or any slower than my Athlon XP.

To sum it up, you ALL have made very good points on why you think one is better than the other. However, people are free to pick whichever computer they like and I highly doubt what somebody says on a message board, or the internet alike, is going to sway the person's final decision. To all of those who are switching from PC to Mac, good luck, I hope you have a better experience that I have had. And for those who are switching from Mac to PC, don't worry, they aren't as bad as a lot of people say. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also your bit about "Well, they are not my tests. But feel free to go to Apple and tell them their own Quake 3 benchmarks are wrong." ??? the site you linked to is not Apple, it's some guy who apparently likes to run benchmarks. I don't recall seeing anything on his site implying endorsement by Apple.

Hahah, I noticed you had to make 2 posts, cos you realised the second URL i posted was at apple.com.

Well done for spotting your own mistake.

Like you said, I don't give a rats ass about whether it scales linearly or not, and I never said it did matter. I have only endeavoured (sorry if I am using language that is outside of your comprehension, but I will not dumb myself down for someone who is so obviously a jerkoff) to point out that the sets of benchmarks you are offering are worthless.

So, are you, or are you not conceding that an SMP system never scales linearly? I do give a Fxxx as you put it, because it is important when one realise we are comparing a dual SMP system against a single CPU system.

Keep being rude, because its obviously you who can't comprehend simple facts.

Alternatively, stick to answering the questions, SMP, scale linearly or not ?

2 more points: has it occured to you that it is strange, on a site dominated nearly entirely by Intel and AMD users, no one has come to your defense?
But I thought you said Macs were popular ?

Again, your helping my availability question.

And TBH, there a million threads on neowin, this one probably isnt very interesting, only to Mac types, so thats about 5 of you :)

and, I simply do not believe that you have as much experience as you say you do. Your comprehension is far below what I have seen in people with far less experience than you claim to have. I am a newbie myself, and I have no trouble at all seeing through your specious arguments.

Well, people argue about things in IT all the time.

Novell versus NT, AMD versus Intel. etc etc

Its not uncommon for me to watch clueless people like yourself argue about something, yet produce no facts yourself.

The inability to follow simple logic, like SMP scaling as above.

The reason its important, is the CT article compares a similar clock single x86 versus dual, which in the end runs single.

clock for clock. As the clock on x86 increases, the G4 does not.

The G4 combats via SMP, but SMP inherantly cannot scale linearly, ergo, as x86 gets faster "almost" linearly with clock, a G4 drops off because of SMP not being linear.

Things are never that simple, it depends on the app, whether its floating point intensive etc. But its one of the few measurements we have to chew over. But you simple CANNOT CLAIM a dual G4 smokes a recent x86 CPU, it just doesn't, and most sane human beings and experienced IT people know this.

i just noticed the link to Apple.com. Really helpful for supporting your tired "SMP systems do not scale linearly" line, but that's it.
Oooh, almost an admission of fact, at last.
It shows nothing about the issue at hand, only that dual processors on a G4 system will give you better performance in Q3A...duh, i never would have guessed that...

You see, your limited cerebral capacity has let you down once more. Q3A is a fairly decent bit of SMP code, written by one of the most repsected programmers around.

It shows CLEARLY, that SMP can only give you so much.

An x86 system with faster clock, wider memory bandwidth etc will leave a G4 or dual G4 system in the shade.

It also gives you a good number, around a 40% benefit, which yes fits almost exactly the numbers I told you, that I knew about instinctively, cos I am an experienced IT person, and your a magazine reading boy. Sorry to be patronising :)

I have no issues with Carmack, in fact If I remember correctly, Q3A was released 1st for the Mac, maybe only by a short time, but ya, Carmack likes Macs. How does that help your argument again?
Its shows he and Graeme Divines credability at good coding practice, so you couldnt counter with

"they are less than optimal on mac, its a pc port bla bla bla"

That non-linear scalability does not take into account the other features in a G4 system that Wickedkitten and others have described at great length. Give it up.

No one has described anything about the Mac at great length, only attempted to poo hoo facts or comparisons with a PC.

You tell me whats so super special about internals of the Mac that make it so fast ?

Its packaged nicely, and its available in different colors like plum, but as a computer user that doesnt do it for me. XP's plug n play (one area a Mac scores highly) works well enough for me not to be jelaous of Mac owners, who have been enjoying that simplicity for years. The trouble is, PC users have alot of that simplicity now, especially if they stick to commodity components.

Ive yet to see any constructive performance benefits with regard to the Mac.

Also notice, how your post failed to address either the cost, or the software availability issue.

I think those issues are conceded.

I'd like you to prove me wrong with regard to Mac performance.

I await with interest your constructive comments and findings of fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As everyone seems to post their favourite benchmarks to justify their position - I thought I'd post mine.

Power PC 7450/7455 G41000 10,564,827

http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.c...h=2&contest=rc5

AMD Athlon XP (Palomino)2000 5,920,827

Intel Pentium 4 2020 3,225,889

http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.c...h=0&contest=rc5

I'm sure AIM are really embarrassed by that. :roll:

Ok, now to the matter at hand.

Rommi.

You're posted the http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html link a few times and it seems to be one you love to quote.

So, lets have a close look at it.

Interesting. So a system with PC133 SDRAM is slower than systems with RDRAM and DDR-SDRAM.

Shocking :roll:

So you say with the greatest of confidence....

Athlon 1.67 GEF3 196

Dual G4 GEF3 156

Same grafix card no ?

Well as the graphics cards are the same then it MUST be a valid processor benchmark.

Utterly retarded rommi, take a look here.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/mainboard/01q...ngl_performance

Strange, the system with the SDRAM is slower than the one with the RDRAM or DDR-SDRAM.

Same grafix card no ?

Oh, well spotted rommi!

But by your very own logic, this is a valid processor comparison, making the P4 2GHz soundly outperform the P4 2GHz!

If you really had the huge amounts of experience with computers that you claim to have, would you not realise that memory latency and bandwidth play a rather large part in this benchmark? After supporting

Macs/PC/Mini/Midi/Mainframe, in fact everything
and using computers for 21 years you should be a veritable guru on PC matters.

Obviously not.

Congratulations, you've just made yourself look like a fool.

--

unspec

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rommi you lost!! About 7 pages ago. They have proven that your benchmarks are not accurate. They have proven that a Mac is cheaper and has equally good software.

And you have proven you have no knowledge of Macs and you are about 14. WAKE UP!! The only reason you see more pc benchmarks is because pc users live or die by them. Look at Intel vs AMD...that arguement is based only around the benchmarks. PC users NEED benchmarks to make them feel like the pc is better. You don't see Mac benchmarks done by anyone (especially by a pc-based reference)because everyone who knows anything about Macs know they are faster.

Just look at the processor chip itself. The PowerPC chip, even by reading about it, is more technologically advanced. RISC vs CISC. Altivec vs no Altivec.

Don't you think the topic "For people undecided about buying a mac" (which shows up on the main page) would draw tons of pc users? PC users will take any chance they get to knock macs. Stupid comments like "Macs suck","they can't do games", etc. But the only one here is you.....

Heck....if I wasn't already convinced Macs were better, this topic would have convinced me anyway. Just reading your typical pc-user mush would have convinced me.

Yah you are the typical pc user. You do have the mentality. Know absolutely nothing about Macs....copying and pasting info from sites...and using benchmarks (and very innaccurate ones at that) is typical pc user mentality. Pcs are for games and kids like you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As everyone seems to post their favourite benchmarks to justify their position - I thought I'd post mine.
Oh goody, finally someone with some hard facts and numbers.

Oh dear, wait a minute.

You've compated RC5 results against OGR.

For anyone genuinely interested, goto:

http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/

And read each column.

Your speed you quote is for the Optimal 24-mark Golomb Ruler project. Yet the speeds you quote for PC are for RC5, the OGR results for AMD are higher, for Intel lower.

Power PC 7450/7455 G41000 10,564,827

AMD Athlon XP (Palomino)2000 12,137,302

Intel Pentium 4 2200 7,684,803

Interesting. So a system with PC133 SDRAM is slower than systems with RDRAM and DDR-SDRAM.

And, so whats your point ?

Which system is quicker are you claiming is faster ?

Well as the graphics cards are the same then it MUST be a valid processor benchmark.

Utterly retarded rommi, take a look here.

No you are retarded, as you cannot read.

If you follow the thread, dotbatman said that the Mac lost as its grafix card was only a XXX, and the x86 machine has YYY.

So i pointed out that in the same stats, there was a direct comparison. Its a system comparison. So, fine, if you want to narrow it down to just processor, i can understand that as the Mac is slower. I just thought that most people buy the whole computer, so a computer v computer result was valid. But you manipulate things the way you want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rommi you lost!!
er, your success criteria are flawed.
They have proven that your benchmarks are not accurate.

Er, some people commented on the CT article, showing it uses 1 CPU, no one has proven that they aren't accurate silly boy.

They have proven that a Mac is cheaper and has equally good software.

Really? Even WickedKitten, a fierce and worthy Mac advocate would not suggest Macs are cheaper.

Where do you live ? Perhaps in your part of the world Macs are cheap, can you publish some prices instead of opinion ?

The only reason you see more pc benchmarks is because pc users live or die by them.

PC users upgrade. I know thats foreign to you Mac plebs, but they do. When choosing components, if prices are the same, how do you choose ? People tend to have selection criteria of brand, easy of purchase or performance. Alot of PC owners use there machines for games, so performance is key for them.

Look at Intel vs AMD...that arguement is based only around the benchmarks. PC users NEED benchmarks to make them feel like the pc is better.
see above. PC owners by and large dont go into shops thinking theymust prove to themselves that a PC is better than a Mac, thats a clearly idiotic thing to say. Most PC owners just care about their PC compared to another PC, not another platform.
You don't see Mac benchmarks done by anyone (especially by a pc-based reference)because everyone who knows anything about Macs know they are faster.

Thats where I came in. Stupid one line statements from people like you. No one, can seriously claim a Mac is faster than a modern off the peg commodity PC, its just plain stupid.

The G4 is a nice design in places, but the clock speed is seriously hampering it.

Just look at the processor chip itself. The PowerPC chip, even by reading about it, is more technologically advanced. RISC vs CISC. Altivec vs no Altivec.

There are parts of the Motorola design which are very good, there is no doubt. And IBM are a great FAB partner. But its not Altivec or none, IBM and even now AMD (now they have switched from their own extensions) have SSE.

Intel made the pipelines too dep in the P4, which is born out by the distributed.net results, where AMD fairs better.

Go here for a real explanation:

http://arstechnica.com/cpu/01q2/p4andg4e/p...p4andg4e-1.html

Its not "more technically advanced". Intels x86 is hampered by legacy, but theres plenty of high tech in an Intel CPU, otherwise they could get them over 2gig in speed.

Heck....if I wasn't already convinced Macs were better, this topic would have convinced me anyway. Just reading your typical pc-user mush would have convinced me.

your clearly a mac fan boy. Thats fine, go and spend money with Apple thats your choice. I am not a tpyical PC user, I am just a normal personal who doesnt have some religeous attachment to a brand like you schmucks with Apple. You all sound like /. Linux advoates who HATE Bill Gates and can't see that actually some Microsoft products are really rather good. People also like to be different. I dont really care about that, there are always odd people in the world, makes it interesting. But making a "a Mac is faster" just can't go by unchallenged, cos its stupid.

Pcs are for games and kids like you

This is a lovely statement. So, just how many millions per day in revenue do Dell turn over on its PC e-commerce system ?

And how many large e-commerce deployments are based on Mac ?

Silly boy. Again, you offer no facts of your own, no statistics, in fact, you may well as not said anything. Your trolling.

Go away and come back with some really cheap Mac prices to amaze us. If not, sit in the corner and leave the debate to the men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh goody, finally someone with some hard facts and numbers.

Oh dear, wait a minute.

You've compated RC5 results against OGR.

For anyone genuinely interested, goto:

http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/

And read each column.

Rommi have you resorted to lying?All results were from RC5, can't you see it in the links?

http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.c...h=0&contest=rc5

http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.c...h=2&contest=rc5

Good grief, please explain to us all where you pulled the fact I was comparing RC5 to OGR from. Go on, we're all waiting to

hear the excuses a man who supports so many IT systems and has been computing for 21 years has. Particularly as you have

repeatedly been shown not to read properly.

For anyone genuinely interested, goto:

http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/

Hello! Clicking on the RC5 links for x86 processors: Intel/AMD/Cyrix... and Power PC Processors give you these two links:

http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.c...h=0&contest=rc5

http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.c...h=2&contest=rc5

My God, those are the same as the ones I gave in my previous post! :o

Shock horror! :roll:

OK Rommi lets look at another of your "words of wisdom"

because a single G4 is no match for x86, and even a dual G4, which yes, will probably do what you want it do, but will

not best a P4 2.2Gig in ANY performance test.

Oh really? Well that's funny because this guy I know said
For anyone genuinely interested, goto:

http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/

And read each column.

Well I did and was amazed to see that

RC5

Dual G4 1GHz - 10,564,827

P4 2.2GHz - 3,185,646

OGR

Dual G4 1GHz - 10,580,270

P4 2.2GHz - 7,684,803

And yes, I did read each column. Seems like the G4 bested that P4 2.2GHz in a performance test.

OK onto the next bit.

And, so whats your point ?

Which system is quicker are you claiming is faster ?

I'm blowing your theory that the G4 is a poor processor out the water. That is my point.

Oh, we almost forgot your benchmarks! :o

Power PC 7450/7455 G41000 10,564,827

AMD Athlon XP (Palomino)2000 12,137,302

Intel Pentium 4 2200 7,684,803

Your OGR results, although it's interesting that you had to resort to an overclocked Athlon, I don't remember them selling a

2000MHz model, do you? It's a shame that there aren't any overclocked G4 results for OGR but there ARE RC5 results.

Well, lets look at them.

AMD Athlon XP (Palomino) 2000 - 12,137,302

AMD Athlon MP 1610 - 6,100,852

Power PC 7450/7455 G4 1600 - 16,991,648

Makes interesting reading doesn't it? Oh I forgot, you don't like to read. Perhaps someone can provide some pictures, or

possibly a graph?

And finally;

No you are retarded, as you cannot read.

If you follow the thread, dotbatman said that the Mac lost as its grafix card was only a XXX, and the x86 machine has YYY.

So i pointed out that in the same stats, there was a direct comparison.

Funnily enough I did read the entire thing, something you seem unable to do.

The SDRAM P4 system was outperformed by the DDR-SDRAM P4 system even though the processors and graphics cards were identical.

Therefore concluding that the G4 processor was a poor performer against the x86 on those

(http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html) benchmarks was stupid. Your use of this

Athlon 1.67 GEF3 196

Dual G4 GEF3 156

was what I was pointing out. A GF3 SDRAM vs GF3 DDR-SDRAM system seems to be a fair way to compare processors in your eyes.

Well it has been proven (http://www6.tomshardware.com/mainboard/01q...ngl_performance) that is not the

case.

You have some seriously deluded concepts about the G4 processor, strangely closed-minded and foolish for such an IT "expert".

--

unspec

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good grief, please explain to us all where you pulled the fact I was comparing RC5 to OGR from. Go on, we're all waiting to

hear the excuses a man who supports so many IT systems and has been computing for 21 years has. Particularly as you have

repeatedly been shown not to read properly.

Yes, your rite, you just picked RC5.

(I own up to getting that wrong, the results are 10 thousand for OGR and RC5 for 1gig G4, and I did you diservice)

When if you look at OGR, it shows that the PPC is beaten.

So, to stop your whiney arse dead in its tracks I actually read a fair bit more of the Dnet stuff. Here is what I found:

"Many other CPUs do not have built-in hardware rotate instructions and must emulate the operation by (at the very least) two shifts and a logical OR. This handicap is why many non-32bit-Intel [1] and non-PowerPC computers run RC5 slower than one might expect based on real-world benchmarks. It is also the main reason why the RC5 client is a poor benchmark to use in determining the speed or performance of a particular CPU."

(note: the P4 does not have a hardware rotate built in)

From their own site, it tells you this is a dumb measurement of general CPU performance, well done for finding it though.

If the CT results I pointed out are duff, so are these.

I'm blowing your theory that the G4 is a poor processor out the water. That is my point.

Out of the water?

In other words, because your average PC is much faster than a Mac, because the surrounding hardware is better on a PC, youve decided to isolate the CPU totally, and your way of illustrating that is by Distributed.Net stats ?

(http://www.barefeats.com/pentium4.html) benchmarks was stupid. Your use of this

Oh yes, comparing an actual working system is stupid.

Your logic is bizzare.

System v System, a PC wins handsomely, so you choose to pick

CPU verus CPU, and even then, you choose the a metric that is about the one good thing the G4 is good at, against a piece of code that is not optimized for either Athlon or P4.

Well done, pat yourself on the back.

When the new RC5 code comes out, we will talk again.

(and even then, the P4 doesnt have a hardware rotate)

Here are the cycles per clock needed for each core on RC5:

P4 700

Athlon 290

PowerPC G4 110.25

So, when RC5 code comes out, that makes the Athlon calculate a key at 110.25 cycles, we will have a fair comparison.

You have some seriously deluded concepts about the G4 processor, strangely closed-minded and foolish for such an IT "expert".

I am not closed minded, hence me going off to find out about these RC5 tests. I find it all very interesting.

I just wont proclaim the world is flat like you and your mac fan boys.

Got any more smart remarks ? Benchmarks that are skewed for PPC ?

Im waiting for you to show me something that shows on a level playing field a PPC beating x86 :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why are you even still on this thread?

www.ihateapple.com

now you can go play with all the other misguided uninformed ****tards that think like you do.

and btw since you love quoting me as saying macs are more expensive than pcs so much i guess you havent seen this thread

https://www.neowin.net/bboard/forumdisplay....p?s=&forumid=30

Link to comment
Share on other sites

System v System, a PC wins handsomely, so you choose to pick

CPU verus CPU, and even then, you choose the a metric that is about the one good thing the G4 is good at, against a piece of

code that is not optimized for either Athlon or P4.

Well done, pat yourself on the back.

When the new RC5 code comes out, we will talk again.

(and even then, the P4 doesnt have a hardware rotate)

Here are the cycles per clock needed for each core on RC5:

P4 700

Athlon 290

PowerPC G4 110.25

So, when RC5 code comes out, that makes the Athlon calculate a key at 110.25 cycles, we will have a fair comparison.

That will never happen, it can't happen. You said yourself that you "read" the details of the RC5 benchmarking, didn't you

see that it was a chip design issue that was the problem here? The P4 comes out worse because of it's long, deep pipe the

Athlon does a lot better, and the G4 chip comes out on top.

It's the best glimpse of the idea behind the P4, it needs to go fast, very fast to perform well. It's designed to go very

fast, this is why the P4 is hitting those high clock speeds.

Are you really expecting an RC5 client that can overcome the design flaws of the x86 CPU's themselves?

I really would like to know just how you think a new client will improve these scores.

As for fair benchmarking, it's impossible. You can't compare designs that have fundamentally different technologies. You will

find some RAM intensive benchmark, and I'll get an Altivec optimised one and throw it back at you.

Im waiting for you to show me something that shows on a level playing field a PPC beating x86

I just showed you a benchmark, and you said it wasn't correct because the G4 happens to a different architecture - well guess

what, that's not going to change.

The real acid test is in the application of the technology.

I have found that the package as a whole (hardware, OS and applications) beautifully fluid. From working in print shop doing

graphic design on OS 9 (which I did not like) I have moved to OS X and it was fantastic. Excellent multi-tasking, full CLI

(bash is my personal preference) utilities, etc.

Undoubtedly being able to purchase a computer where the OS and applications have been tunes to the hardware leads to smooth

productive computing. Much as I like to start up my 1.4GHz Athlon for a day of Photoshop work it seems less appealing after

the PSU/HSF kick in - a lot less appealing than my G4 Cube. This cube has a processor running at 450MHz, yes 450. The truly

shocking thing is that it really seems just as fast even when I build up the layers and paths.

For people undecided About getting a Mac or not - look frankly at how you use your computer.

If you like to use your broadband connection to download EB's entire stock of games, a Mac is not for you.

If you find that playing games isn't that high on your list of priorities and are looking into entering/exploring the

creative side of things, web-design, graphic design (screen+print) or music/video work - this is definitely a platform to

consider.

Oh and if it's a laptop you're looking for, the iBook and PowerBook range are excellent.

--

unspec

[Edited for spelling error]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After all that banta, I actually agree with your last post almost entirely. (im getting a warm feeling)

I wont split hairs about a new RC5 client, it would just seem churlish at this point. And to be honest, I am kinda nodding with due respect to how well the G4 did on the tests, for which the G4 is particularly well suited.

The fact the Mac hardware and software are all tied so tightly to the machines, must make for a nice experience.

In a scarey kinda way, im hoping Microsoft move on from the XBOX to a Microsoft PC. This will probably scare the crap out of everyone, but can you imagine a PC with the integration of a Mac.

For me, (personally), the fact I can slowly upgrade my PC is steps, or make an initial big purchase cheaper than a Mac, I can swap software ;) and have what feels to me a pretty fast experience will keep me on the PC side of the fence. My P4 1.4 with XP on it really feels nice, and its hardly the latest and greatest bit of kit for a PC. I'm a bit old fashioned with my GeForce 2 :)

I feel enriched by reading this thread, I know alot more about PowerPC chips than when I first came in, and I enjoyed the mischeivious slanging matches. I just hope wickedkitten will put the knives away before it gets dark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.