Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Technology (Apple) Businesses Apple Technology

G5 Benchmark Roundup 251

Posted by pudge
from the in-case-you-are-not-sick-of-all-this-yet dept.
"The G5 is the fastest PC in the world." "Yes, it is." "No, it's not!" Whatever. Read on for more on the subject, if you really want to.
Matt Johnson writes "Well it looks like we finally have our first comparison of G5 vs. AMD Opteron, completed by none other than Charlie White, the individual which gained much oh his fame by publishing misleading benchmarks to make Apple's Final Cut Pro Software look like a bad performer. Mr. White's latest comparison shows the Opteron operating roughly 50% faster but what he doesn't say is which compiler was used to generate those SPEC scores. When Apple declared its benchmarks I feared that whoever made the first comparison would likely make this mistake. It seems only appropriate that Charlie White would be first."

An anonymous reader writes "In an ironic twist to the recent benchmark wars, Intel referred the Mac site MacFixIt to an analyst at Gartner Group who actually backed the PowerPC G5 platform with this assertion: 'These models certainly equal Intel's advanced 875 platform and should allow Apple to go until 2005 without a major platform refresh.'"

Another anonymous user writes, "While browsing the Xbench benchmark comparison site, I discovered some G5 benchmarks! The 'G5 Lab Machine at WWDC' got an overall score of 164.78, but much higher scores in certain areas. All of the tests are calibrated to give 100 on an 800MHz DP Quicksilver G4."

vitaboy writes "Sound Technology, one of the "leading UK distributors specialising in musical instruments, music software and pro-audio equipment," seems to have some data regarding the real-world performance of the G5 compared to the high-end PC. They state, 'The dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 with Logic Platinum 6.1 can play 115 tracks, compared with a maximum of 35 tracks on the Dell Dimension 8300 and 81 tracks on the Dell Precision 650 each with Cubase SX 1.051 ... More impressively, the 1.6GHz single-processor Power Mac G5 played 50 percent more tracks than the 3GHz Pentium 4-based system.'"

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

G5 Benchmark Roundup

Comments Filter:
  • by NickV (30252) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @09:51AM (#6319294)
    That Charlie White gets off on doing nothing more than trashing the Mac and he often makes tons of things up...

    A real good point, and one to points to the fact that Charlie White stats are COMPLETELY cooked up and fake, is that apparently AMD benchmarked against a SINGLE G5 2Ghz Powermac...

    Hmm... Where did the Single 2ghz G5 Powermac come from? We know Apple doesn't make them...

    If you're gonna lie, at least do it right. Sigh.

    (And another thing, AMD has more credibility than Apple regarding self-reported benchmark scores? There is no reason for that other than bias.)
  • by GurgleJerk (568712) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @10:19AM (#6319409)
    Looking at everything I've seen so far, it looks like the G5 at 2.0 GHz is comparable to a current Xeon or P4 on raw speed. Maybe it lags a little bit in some areas, and in a few areas it can beat the Xeon or P4. But I think we've gotten a little too anal about the processor specs. If I'm not mistaken, Apple didn't claim "World's Fastest Processor." they claimed "World's Fastest Personal Computer."

    At 2.0 GHz, the G5 is on par with the current top processors, but what I think people need to look at is that the 1GHz bus is a monster. It allows data transfer rates that smoke other desktop systems. This is where Apple picks up a lot of speed, especially with disk-hungry programs like Photoshop. So the total system is significantly faster than the PC in terms of that kind of real-world performance.

    And there are two more things that give the G5 an advantage: price and GHz. If the claim of twelve months to 3.0GHz is true, then at 3.0GHz the G5 will be exponentially faster than a 3.5 or 3.6 GHz P4. I don't know precisely how fast the Intel chips will be in 12 months, but a whole GHz? Unlikely.

    Lastly, price is a fantastic advantage for the G5 systems. At $3000 you can buy the fastest Mac and a machine that can run certain apps twice as fast as PC systems. And it's cheaper than these top-of-the-line PCs by more than $1000. The G5 is simply the fastest, cheapest system with the most potential in the future to get even faster. When looked at in total, there really isn't a lot of debate on those points.
  • real world apps (Score:5, Interesting)

    by goombah99 (560566) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @10:30AM (#6319458)
    The keynote address was fairly long so I would guess most slashdot readers actually watched all of it. In it they did on stage examples of tests they did with real world apps.

    They showed four top-shelf apps: Photoshop, Mathematica, Emagic, and one other I'm spacing on. In each case the apps were not demoed by mac but rather by someone from the app company. And the examples they gave were clearly practical ones not special cases noone would actually want to do. In the case of Photoshop it was actually a commerical product (movie poster) that was recreated by replaying the artists commands. In the case of the Emagic it was the compositing of the actual musical composition that the musician had done. In the case of mathematical it was the calcualtion of a fractal curve: theodore grey pointed out they had to dumb down the calculations so they xeon would not run out of memory.

    in all cases the Apple ran more than 2X faster than the Xeon.

    now you could try to say these were tweaked apps, but that wont wash. these are pro-sumer apps that these comanies sell for a living. you better believe that would optimize the heck out of both the wintel and Apple versions. Certianly, if there was any tewaking tobe done they had lots of time and no shortage of manpower and experts to do it on the intel instruction set. Another test they did not demo live was the 40% higher frame rate in Quake

    If all they had shown was some single case like photshop or Quake I might have been less convinced. but here are five different genres of applications, in the most demanding fields of Imagery, music, (real world) numerical math, Gaming and others. Okay so your application--say MS word or web browsing--isn't so demanding. That's not the pointis it: you aren't doing things where the machine is the speed limit.

    I think its pretty reasonable to assume that over time compilers for the new G5 will imporve more that those for the i86 instruction set since there's new things to exploit. Likewise relatively few compilers do a good job of taking fulladvantage of the Altivec extensions yet. And with the fat, independent pipes to disk, and memory apps will need to be re-written since many of the old bottlenecks they were designed to avoid aren't there anymore

    So argue all you want about SPEC tests, but were taking shaving ten or 20 minutes per hour of real world usages. Its phenomenal. In my opinion the diveristy of tests clearly shows the mac is not only the fasest currently on-sale platform, but that there is not even any wiggle room to doubt that.

  • by GreenHell (209242) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @10:30AM (#6319461)
    Actually, if you look at Apple's G5 Performance page [apple.com] you'll see that those are the numbers for the dual 2GHz G5.

    Given that, I'm still inclined to take the comparison with an entire shaker of salt. I mean, if he's suspiscious of Apple's numbers but not suspiscious of numbers obtained from another processor manufacturer than I don't know what to say other than 'Mr. White, your bias is showing.'

    I'm waiting until they hit the market so that the comparisons are done by people who actually got to test the machines themselves, not some guy who knew what he wanted the data to say before he even began writing. Until then, all I'll say is that it looks like nice hardware. But faster or better? Who knows.
  • real world apps?! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by andrewleung (48567) <rockin@gmail.com> on Saturday June 28, 2003 @10:45AM (#6319529)
    now, how come everyone is just focusing on SPEC benchmarks?! which compiler, what options were set, etc.?!

    i saw the keynote, they had photoshop/mathmatica/etc. going on there... photoshop has been out on PC for a while... REALLY enhanced with MMX/SSE/SSE2... and it probably was using the intel compiler... but the G5 version was only a few months old, barely optimized, and using whatever tools apple gave them (probably GCC 3.3)... and the G5s still kicked a lot of ass.

    benchmarks are important but it's not my job. if i can get shit done faster in photoshop with BSD guts, i'm all for it.

    fuck the benches. welcome to the REAL world...
  • maybe (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jbolden (176878) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @11:05AM (#6319614) Homepage
    I think its pretty reasonable to assume that over time compilers for the new G5 will imporve more that those for the i86 instruction set since there's new things to exploit.

    Actually from an optomization standpoint x86 is pretty new too. What you need to do for Pentium IV (pre HyperThreading) is very different than what is needed for Pentium III and different from what is needed for PIV w/ HT. Further the complexity is so great that compiler science of today is really not up to the task.

    Conversely the G5 is much simplir problem due to better design. OTOH it also much newer. It may be that in practice (especially when people are willing to lose 32 bit and/or G3 compatability) you might get some truly wonderful improvement.

    So I'm really not sure where there is more room for improvement over time. I just don't think its nearly as easy to say as you had it in the above. In my opinion its going to come down to a political choice regarding the G3s vs. advances in compiler technology.
  • Re:Useless article (Score:3, Interesting)

    by diverman (55324) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @11:07AM (#6319626)
    I agree. Wait for the REAL benchmarks.

    One thing I have to say about Apple's spin on benchmarks... Has Apple Marketing finally figured out how the rest of the companies play the game??? If so, Apple might stand a chance afterall!!!

    -Alex
  • by FueledByRamen (581784) * <sabretooth@gmail.com> on Saturday June 28, 2003 @11:42AM (#6319792)
    This is where Apple picks up a lot of speed, especially with disk-hungry programs like Photoshop.
    That probably should read "memory-hungry." Disk transfers are still really, really slow - although SATA (which is used in the G5) can go at 150 megs/sec, so can full-duplex Gigabit Ethernet (also included). The real performance ass-kicker is the memory bus - they use 128-bit DDR400, and I'm assuming it can be interleaved (since you're probably going to put multiple sticks in it anyway) for even better performance. They get 6.4GB/sec (gigabytes) out of it (stated at the Stevenote), which is pretty damn good. Not quite enough to saturate the processors' FSBs, but if you need to move a lot of stuff to/from RAM, PCI/X slots (optional), AGP, and the I/O controller (sound, ethernet, etc), like in any game, any high-end 3d app, or any audio app that includes an effects processor (especially when running it on a real-time audio input, recording, while also outputting the results, at 96khz 48000/stereo), the G5 will dominate.
  • Re:real world apps (Score:2, Interesting)

    by chasingporsches (659844) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @12:06PM (#6319905)
    isn't it great to see a /. comment thread where the people aren't flaming each other or shunning someone? :-) i love it

    but anyways... i completely agree. its not about numbers anymore. really, it hasn't been about numbers for the past 2 or 3 years once AMD Athlon XP became big. if all the little 12 year olds want to fight over decimals on benchmarks, let them. but when i saw the dual 2.0GHz G5 BLAZING past the dual 3.06GHz Xeon at WWDC, that was enough proof to me. they could show me all the numbers they wanted to, it wouldn't change anything. Cubasis crashed on the Xeon. Logic ran beautifully. Photoshop COMPLETELY blew the Xeon away, by a matter of minutes, while the G5 finished in, what, maybe a minute? And mathmatica... man, was that crazy. The G5 could have done the Logic, Photoshop, and Mathmatica tests in the time that it took the dual Xeon to do just the Mathmatica. so all you little script kiddies can b*tch at me all you want, but i know what i saw. and what i saw was the fastest desktop in the world. and many others did too, to back me up.
  • by dbrutus (71639) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @12:20PM (#6319952) Homepage
    But past a certain framerate I can compile in background and still run Quake at an acceptable speed. Sure, it makes the compile slow down some but if you're going to take a 10 minute break, isn't it nice to be able to get some work done in the background at the same time?
  • Re:Useless article (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 28, 2003 @02:45PM (#6320686)
    You'll notice, if you weren't a lemming yourself, that there are G5 benchmarks provided by IBM that do extremely well against the Opteron and P4. Oh, and by the way, these same results that are provided by IBM are significantly better than the results Apple is using. Just goes to show you how much SPEC relies on compiler. The important thing is the G5 is competitive and so close it probably doesn't matter too much. Doesn't every company claim to have the fastest CPU out? Come one now, repeat after me... MARKETING.

    Apple states they are the first 64-bit desktop. Yeah it's marketing and it relies heavily on the definition of a desktop, but I tend to agree with Apple. Why do I agree that Apple has the first 64-bit desktop? Because any 64-bit machine that was released before the G5 had to be ordered from a manufacturer of workstations or built using parts intended and marketed for workstations. If I had billions of dollars and I buy a an ASCII White to use at home, does that mean ACSII white becomes the fastest desktop ever?

    Yeah, a consumer could always buy a 64-bit machine, but it's not marketed toward them and is more difficult to obtain. There was no mass market/consumer availability. Can you go into your local CompUSA or Best Buy and get a 64-bit computer? No. Can you order a 64-bit computer from the Home & Home Office section of Dell? No. You will, however, be able to walk into an Apple Retail store or CompUSA and buy a 64-bit G5 once they start shipping in Aug/Sept. I do believe you will. In fact, you can buy one right now, except you won't get it for a month or two.

    So yes, Apple may very well have the first 64-bit desktop... as long as Dell Home doesn't begin selling a 64-bit machine before September.
  • Re:Useless article (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 28, 2003 @03:05PM (#6320774)
    Anandtech? Seriously, there are very few relatively unbiased sites out there and Anandtech ain't one of them. Ars Technica is probably the most unbiased there is, and that's where I'll be looking. As for Anandtech, if they post a review of the G5, I'll read it, but I've seen too many Apple-bashing comments in previous stories and reviews to consider them an unbiased source.
  • by Zeio (325157) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @04:30PM (#6321208)
    The SPEC marks use only one CPU for SPEC_int and SPEC_fp.

    Why doesn't Apple publish their marks on specbench.org? Why don't people look at
    this:
    http://www.specbench.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q2 /cpu2000-20030421-02108.html [specbench.org]

    or

    this: [specbench.org]
    http://www.specbench.org/cpu2000/results/res2003 q2 /cpu2000-20030421-02109.html

    The compiler?
    Compiler: Intel C/C++ 7.0 build 20021212Z and
    Intel Fortran 7.0 build 20021212Z,
    Compaq Visual Fortran Compiler Version 6.6
    Update B, Microsoft Visual Studio .NET (libraries)7.0.9466,
    MicroQuill Smartheap Library 6.0

    A few samples of the tweaks used to get peak?
    C +FD0 -O3 -QxW -Qipo ;
    C++ +FD0 -Qipo -GX -GR ;
    Fortran +FD0 -O3 -QaxK -Qipo -Oi-

    Apple should be forced to do full disclosure and publish results. I think SPEC should forbid the quoting of unpublished SPEC marks.

    I think people need to better understand these benchmarks before commenting on them.

    I personally consider the peak scored for INT and FP because the OS, the compilers, the compiler flags and libraries used are generally "real" and good for multipurpose general use -not the case in a certain Apple benchmark where a library was used that would be useless on a production system quote from an Extreme Tech article [extremetech.com]
    " Installed a high performance, single threaded malloc library. This library implementation is geared for speed rather than memory efficiency and is single-threaded which makes it unsuitable for many uses. Special provisions are made for very small allocations (less than 4 bytes). This library is accessed through use of the -lstmalloc flag during program".
    What I find the most interesting thing to come of this whole mess is the fact than the Opteron produced some scores which challenge the Itanium 2 on Intel's own compiler.
  • by garyebickford (222422) <gar37bic.gmail@com> on Saturday June 28, 2003 @07:06PM (#6322101)
    It's not always the cycles, it's how they're spread around and how you use them.

    I still have an original 25MHz NextStation. CPU is a Moto 68040, plus (Intel?) Digital Signal Processing (DSP) chip that does (most of?) the rendering for both the display and the laser printer.

    Back in 1999 I compared this box in actual usability with a Mac Powerbook 5300, admittedly the slowest and lamest PPC Mac ever built.

    I found that in general usage, opening windows, updating display, doing word processing, etc., the NeXT outran the PB 5300.

    Compiling speed sucked big time. Stuff that took a few minutes on the PB5300 ran overnight on the NeXTstation. This demonstrated to me the advantage of having a display coprocessor.

    The user interface was also better by far than the Mac that stage. I used several 3rd party enhancements, such as one that provided an infinite-size virtual window, so it's not a completely fair comparison. The NeXT also scame with a bunch of cool apps, like Mathematica, Webster's, Lotus Improv (completely unique approach to spreadsheets, so far unduplicated.)

    Most impressive thing about the NextStation was the industrial design. It is still the most elegant design I have ever seen in a desktop computer. For example, the ribbon cables from the mainboard to the floppy and the disk are about 1.5 inches each - just a 90 degree curve, essentially. Those are the only wires inside the box!

    I've still got the NeXT, though it's back in the original boxes. I'll probably sell it eventually. I've also got three Perq workstations from 1982-3, but I haven't benchmarked them.

    It's worth noting that NextStep's complete object integration across all apps was cited as a major inspiration for Tim Berners-Lee's original proposal for the World Wide Web. In fact, I even have a running copy of that first version of TBL's code, called (surprisingly) "WWW".
  • A glimmer of hope (Score:2, Interesting)

    by navig (683406) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @10:08PM (#6322913) Homepage
    Even with all the disputes for and against the new G5s, it is good to see Apple providing a worthwhile high-end machine.

    The fact that these benchmark arguments are even occuring is 'a good thing' for the Apple community.

    For the last few years Apple owners have always had to begrudingly admit that they had no hope of beating Intel/AMD on nearly any performance metric. Thanks to the G5 they now have a glimmer of hope (and pride)!

    It is also good to see Apple announcing a 3Ghz edition of the G5 in the near future.

    Regardless of the benchmarks, it should really show off Panther (Mac OS X 10.3) :-)
  • by SvnLyrBrto (62138) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @10:55PM (#6323088)
    Not only IS ars technica biased angainst Macs, they proudly advretise it as their tagline:

    "The PC enthusiast's resourse"

    Personally, when dealing with a site so proudly dripping with bias, I assume that Macintosh performance is understated by at least 50%.

    Or, even if you overlook THAT (How CAN you? It's at the top of their site!), did you forget their "RISC suxors, CISC r00l3z j00... GO INTEL!!! woot woot!" ranting against Macs a while back? Sorry, but ars technica has NO claim on any "unbiased site" title.

    cya,
    john

  • Real World Benchmark (Score:5, Interesting)

    by inertia@yahoo.com (156602) * on Saturday June 28, 2003 @11:49PM (#6323322) Homepage Journal
    Here's my idea of a real world benchmark. Take 75 people with varying levels of technical no-how. Divide them into three groups of 25, and assign various real world tasks.

    Obviously one group of 25 is using only the latest and greatest that the wintel people has to offer, while another group is using only the latest and greatest that Apple has to offer.

    What is the third group doing? Each person in the third group gets to choose which platform they can use.

    All three groups would be given real world objectives. Some would be as simple as writing a report. Some would be as technical as application development. Others would be as pointless as a Quake III tournament. All would be measured for how much time it took to complete, and/or other pertinent measurements to see which platform stood out. This is less of a performance test and more of a productivity test.

    What is the third group for? It's the preference control group. Do people really prefer one platform over the other AND are they more productive when they can choose? That's what I'd really like to know. Most companies are dead set on one side or the other (usually wintel). If anyone goes off the beaten path, they are the black sheep.

    Personally, I like to work on multiple platforms - some at the same exact time. If the current BitTorrent implementation is better on OS X, I'm using it. If the best IRC implementation is in the X Window system, I'm there. If it's quicker for me to pull up the Windows calculator when I'm trying to convert a decimal value to hex, that's what I'll do. But am I really being more productive (and why am I using BitTorrent and IRC to measure this)?
  • by RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) on Saturday June 28, 2003 @11:59PM (#6323358)
    Canterwood's Dual DDR400 and 800MHZ FSB also does a very good job of getting data to and from the processor. So do Opteron's DualDDR400 integrated memory controller and 3x 6.4Gbyte/sec HyperTransport links.

    Remember, the G5 isn't the only processor with insane memmory and I/O bandwidth.
  • by saden1 (581102) on Sunday June 29, 2003 @10:26AM (#6324927)
    I build my own systems and I sure as hell can build a screaming system for much less than any Mac out there.

    I have had experience with doggy components, guess what I did with them though? I sent them back. About ten miles away from me is an Internet computer store that is supper cheap. It is really a miracle how they mange to keep their prices so low. I usually go in there and buy most of my stuff.

    $150 - CPU - AMD XP 2800
    $100 - Mobo - I'm an ASUS fanboy :p
    $110 - HD - IBM/Matrox
    $60 - Burner - LiteOn
    $40 - DVD ROM
    $50 - Case w/ power supply.
    $70 - Sound card - TB Santa Curz
    $150 - Video Card - Take your pick midrange nVidia or ATI.
    $70 - Memory 512MB PC3200.

    Total=$800

    All quality products at super low cost.
  • by Wyatt Earp (1029) on Sunday June 29, 2003 @11:20AM (#6325181)
    The whole DIY vs. vendor built arguement is going to be harder to settled than emacs vs. vi or FreeBSD is dying - No it isn't.

    Right now I have two computers on my desk, a 17" iMac LCD 800 and an Athlon XP 1900+ with an ASUS mobo. The PC has a Lian-Li Al case with Stealth fans through the whole box. It still sounds like a freight-train coming down a hill. My stock XP install crashes about once for every 8 hours it's on.

    It was cheaper to build, but it took much longer to set up. I spent 2000 on the iMac and about 1000 on the PC (ATi All-In-Wonder). The iMac took about 10 minutes to set up. The PC took about 10 hours to get built plus longer amounts of downtime if I want to add another drive to the mix. Plus there was the weekend of new fans for the PC. I'd say to get the PC to the point it's at now it's been at least 30 hours of work.

    Depending on how much your time is worth, a DIY PC can cost just as much or more than a Dell, Apple, IBM
  • detailed pics of G5 (Score:2, Interesting)

    by BobWeiner (83404) on Sunday June 29, 2003 @12:01PM (#6325387) Homepage Journal
    This [99mac.com] might shed some light on the innards and appearance of the new G5, for comparison purposes.
  • by Chrysophrase (621331) on Sunday June 29, 2003 @03:28PM (#6326398) Homepage

    The one true reason why I still buy Macs: none of the other machines can run OS X.

    Don't get me wrong: I use Wintel and Linux in my studio as well, but nothing comes close to Mac OS X. To me it's the only system that offer something close to luxury on the desktop.

  • by Chief Typist (110285) on Sunday June 29, 2003 @11:42PM (#6328553) Homepage
    I got a chance to talk to the project leader for Photohshop during WWDC, and the memory bandwidth is exactly where they're seeing the major performance wins. This is also probably true with the music applications: both need to move large chunks of memory around.

    It's also interesting to note that Apple is aware of the new & cool things that having all of this bandwidth -- I asked at one of the graphics sessions if they had looked into using High Dynamic Range images as a standard part of Core Graphics (Quartz) -- they said "we're looking into it..."

    BTW: HDR images use a 32-bit floating point value for each component of a pixel (so you're no longer limited to values in the range of 0-255 to represent red, green, blue and alpha.) Using floating point values for each pixel gives you a lot more "headroom" when manipulating the image. A G5 with a fat & fast bus coupled with a kick-ass floating point vector unit will allow applications that Wintel can only dream of...
  • by nozpamming (664873) on Monday June 30, 2003 @07:55AM (#6329920)
    Check out these articles from macobserver and the website of luxology on their view of G5 performance. The whole spec-crap is totally irrelevant. Only applications matter:

    Luxology's response [luxology.net]

    The mac observer on GP performance [macobserver.com]
  • I can certianly build it cheaper.

    Well, good for you. You, however, are in a very small minority of PC users. The majority either don't want to be bothered building their own machine, or do not have the expertise to do so.

    I hate the standard Dell vs. Apple price comparisons.

    The only fair comparison is "purchased, manufacturer-supported, finished product" vs. "purchased, manufacturer-supported, finished product," not "purchased, manufacturer-supported, finished product" vs. "commodity components cobbled together by end user probably using a pirated copy of Windows."

    Additionally, my reply was addressing the original poster's claim that a certain Dell box was faster and cheaper.

    ~Philly
  • by Compulawyer (318018) on Monday June 30, 2003 @10:47AM (#6331250)
    Now I'm just waiting for a dual proc G5 XServe to be released...

    I'm waiting for a 4-WAY XServe. Check out the section of Apple's site for Panther Server. They seem to be going after (caution - over-used bad business jargon coming) enterprise-wide applications and enterprise users (end jargon) pretty seriously. All I have to say is that if so, it is about time.

  • by eclectic4 (665330) on Monday June 30, 2003 @11:40AM (#6331675)
    Where is the...

    Second CPU

    Super Drive, standard

    Gigabit Ethernet, standard

    Is that a 160 GB ATA 7200 RPM HD? standard

    What in the hell does that $50 case look like? Will it be easy to add RAM to? No tools necessary, right?

    Where's the keyboard? duh, standard

    Mouse?

    iMovie, iTunes, iCal, iDVD, iPhoto, iChat, OS X, etc... etc...

    It's true, you can't build a Mac for less than Apple sells 'em, like you can for the PC.

    Noted...

  • by godzilla808 (586045) on Monday June 30, 2003 @11:41AM (#6331684) Journal
    Couple questions:
    Does the ASUS have Firewire 400 and 800 built in? USB 2.0?
    Why did you go with a DVD ROM instead of a DVD burner?
    What about fans (case and processor)?
    Does the "midrange" video support dual digital displays?
    How fast is the FSB on the mobo?
    Max RAM on the mobo?
    Digital sound input/output?
    PCI-X slots? AGP 8x?
    Gigabit ethernet?
    Serial ATA?

    It sounds like a great system, but I want to make sure it's an even comparison to what the G5 is offering, otherwise price is irrelavant.
  • by White Roses (211207) on Monday June 30, 2003 @06:39PM (#6335179)
    I'd say the fact this moron uses, as a reference link to external information, the haxial idiocy, pretty much eliminates any credibility this guy had.

    Oh, and right on BOXX's homepage, it says Workstation. And speed? In fact, the fastest Opteron you can get is 1.8GHz. So, again, this guy is an idiot. And if he wants to spend about $1000 more (yes, that's right, check the dual 2GHz G5 against the dual 1.8GHz BOXX with similar specs) on his system, then he's fallen into the same trap that all us deluded Mac users have evidently fallen prey to: quality costs money. Perhaps it's the fact that a G5 costs $1000 less that makes it "not a workstation"? Hmmm? 'Praps? And anyway, it's an Opteron. If that's what the G5 is competing agains, why is AMD bothering to make the Athlon64, which they freely admit is their desktop 64-bit processor? Let's see what these Opteron systems do against, say, a Power4.

    It's also so very nice of him to blindly trust AMD. Surely, they have nothing to gain by claiming that they have the fastest processor, oh no. And AMD naming their chips with blatantly misleading numbers, well, that's not marketing at all, is it? How can this Wintel court jester say that AMD has more or less credibility than Apple?

    And here it is, the crowning turd on the dung heap: "But then, there's credibility, which some people believe is everything." Though, evidently, not this delusional puppet, because he has none.

  • by afantee (562443) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @06:27AM (#6338024)
    Anyone doubting the speed of G5 should take a look at this

    http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_ results.asp?resulttype=noncluster&version=5

    In short, the IBM pSeries 690 with 32-way 1.7 GHz IBM Power 4 is 10% faster than the newly released HP 64-way 1.5 GHz Itanium 2 6M Madison, which means the Power 4 is 220% as fast as Madison and much more than the 3 GHz Xeon.

    According to IBM, the Power 5 will be 400% faster than Power 4 and is coming next year. It looks that Apple is in good company.
  • by afantee (562443) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @07:02AM (#6338100)
    According to this article:

    http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaret opics/hardware/server/story/0,10801,82642,00.html

    A Dell 1.3 GHz Itanium 2 (Madison) server costs 200% as much as a dual 2 GHz G5 Power Mac.

    There were 1900 Itanium 2 servers sold in the last 3 months - an embarrassing figure shared between so many OEMs. According to Intel, there are only 400 native programs for Itanium.

    In contrast, there are over 6000 native OS X programs that will run the G5 with no modification, and there should be many 64-bit apps in the next few months. So why should anyone want to pay twice the money for a hot and noisy Dell with less performance, less feature, less style, and much less software than the dual G5 Power Mac?

Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them. -- Bill Vaughn

Working...