Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

PC World: Apple G5 Gets Trounced By Athlon 64

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the os-x-doesn't-run-so-hot-on-athlon dept.

AMD 1063

StewedSquirrel writes "PC World magazine has published an article comparing the AMD Athlon 64 and Opteron versus Apple's G5 processor, both 64-bit contenders for the title of 'fastest desktop processor.' Apple has made many claims to be the first, fastest and only 64-bit processor for the desktop and workstation market, but (not mentioning the fact that Opteron beat the G5 to market by over 4 months) the benchmarks should speak for themselves. Of note is the 3.2GHz Pentium 4, coming in competitive with the G5, but significantly behind the Opteron and Athlon 64 systems."

cancel ×

1063 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

G5 is to slow to get FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218293)

(nt)

YOu misspelled "(nt)" try it like this: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218305)

woot (-1, Offtopic)

extrarice (212683) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218294)

first

Re:woot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218320)

YOU FAIL IT

Charbroiled (-1, Troll)

Scoria (264473) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218296)

Shortly afterward, PC World employees were observed extinguishing a fire that had apparently originated from "the Athlon room." The charbroiled G5 processor was unavailable for comment.

But Linux will suck on both platforms. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218302)

Ladies and gentlemen... I have a confession to make.
I hate Linux.

Don't get me wrong. I love that Linux exists. I love that there is an open source community that challenges the Microsoft monopoly. I think Linus Torvalds has done a great thing for planet Earth. I love that there are thousands of people who are programming free software for the simple joy of it.

I just don't want it anywhere near me, that's all.

I've been studying computers and computer technology for a while. I've taken one course specifically devoted to Linux, and I have had considerable dealings with it since. So, sure, I'm not an expert. But I'm not exactly a novice, either.

First of all: you have to learn all the stupid little abbreviated commands to use it, even if you have a nice clean GUI. There are no exceptions. Want to install that nice free software you just downloaded? Gotta do it from the command line. In contrast, Windows does everything for you. They dumb it down for you. Sure, it's a little insulting, a little demeaning... but I don't have to work at it.

Secondly... the infamous blue screen of death. Sure, I don't get it when I run Linux... but only because the screen of death in question isn't blue. It's more like black. Windows crashes when I try to run eight programs at once. Linux crashes when I close the laptop lid.

And I'm not talking about a little crash. I had to flip the bloody thing over and pull out the battery.

Thirdly... I'm sorry. Linux people are nerds. Now sure, nerds are a good thing... but you're all nerds. If I wanted to deal with a 100% nerd social circle, I'd go to Star Trek conventions. Let's face it... if you even know what Linux is, you're in the top five nerd percentile of the planet.

Fourth... crappy web browsers. Like most of the planet, I use computers primarily for the Internet, and the Internet primarily for the Web. My web access is important to me. I downloaded Mozilla once, just to try it out on my home computer.

It's slower than IE, and doesn't display some sites correctly. That makes it worse than IE. Period.

My dislike (and yes, a certain amount of contempt) for Linux is the main reason I don't like to refer to myself as a computer geek. Yes, I definitely have a lot of geekish tendencies. This website is a shrine to my geekiness. I am very geeky, adjective. But I am not a geek, noun.

Because I don't live on caffiene, I don't play Quake, I don't read Slashdot, and I hate Linux.

fastest post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218303)

buwa.

Does anyone... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218323)

ever get sick of Apple bashing? sheesh

If it is this kind of bashing.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218542)

If it is this kind of bashing (a machine way outperforming an Apple machine), what is wrong with it? Healthy competition.

The KEY (-1, Flamebait)

krray (605395) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218327)

The KEY is: does either the Athlon or Pentium run OS X?

Re:The KEY (1, Funny)

NoOneInParticular (221808) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218392)

Ah, if that's the key, I'm sure that the G5 is the fastest desktop computer that can run OS X.

Funny this, it seems that Apple always provides by far the fastest hardware to run OS X. Amazing.

SUN (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218395)

SUN Microsystems did the same thing.

After their $40k servers were proven to run slower than a $3k AMD boxen, they started pretending to be OS vendors and went on saying that Solaris is what's *really cool* about sparcs.

That's a statement on the road to dying...

Re:SUN (1)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218464)

but OS X is what is cool about Macs. even if macs had Quantum Processors in them, if they ran Mac OS Classic, I would not even consider them.

Re:The KEY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218396)

Exactly, that puts the Athlon even further ahead!

Exactly (1, Informative)

Frothy Walrus (534163) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218420)

I'll take a slight speed hit (oh no! only 294 frames per second!) if it means not having to use an OS which finds a way to annoy me every 20 seconds (Windows), or an OS straight out of 1997 (Linux, etc). OS X is a revolution in usability.

Re:Exactly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218458)

I don't know about your name, Frothy Walrus, but what you said was spot on.

Personally, I don't give a frothy f--k how fast the Athlon is if I've gotta run some Windows or Linux stuff on it (unless it's a server, in the which case Linux only thanks).

Re:The KEY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218437)

No way.

If Apple were ever to release OS X for x86, Billy G. would call up Apple: "Bad little lap doggy! No more Office for Mac!"

Re:The KEY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218540)

You Maccies wish OS X had that kind of power... If it was released for x86, no one would give a rat's ass. The software everyone uses runs under Windows. OS X is no more a threat to Windows than Linux is.

Re:The KEY (-1, Troll)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218439)

Yeah, but the operating system doesn't really matter that much when you don't have anything worthwhile to run on it! "Hey, now I can run Photoshop REALLY REALLY fast!"

-- Dr. Eldarion --

Re:The KEY (1)

tmark (230091) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218467)

The KEY is: does either the Athlon or Pentium run OS X?

If that is the key, then why isn't THAT what Apple is trumpeting when they make performance claims ? If that is the key, why isn't THAT what Apple zealots have been trumpeting recently when talking about G5 performance ?

Re:The KEY (1)

bytebucket_1024 (711982) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218546)

the point is that the G5 clearly doesn't win in terms of performance. you're asking whether or not the Athalon would run OS X... well... will the G5 run Windows? They're obviously runnnig two different operating systems. The interesting point here is not choice of OS, but performance of the hardware.

hhahahah (1, Funny)

madpiggy_dj (698126) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218329)

we would like to thank AMD for their contributions to this story and our bank accounts

Not one reason to go with Apple then (-1, Troll)

Amiga Lover (708890) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218334)

Not one. You want Unix? Linux on Athlon

Want speed Better than Apple's? Athlon ANYTHING

Want design better than Apple's? liebermann [go-l.com]

Someone remind me why I should even consider a mac?

Re:Not one reason to go with Apple then (-1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218386)

Not one. You want Unix? FreeBSD on 486

Want speed Better than Amigas? 486 ANYTHING

Want design better than Amigas? Intel

Someone remind me why I should even consider an Amiga?

Re:Not one reason to go with Apple then (1)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218387)

Someone remind me why I should even consider a mac?
OS X

Re:Not one reason to go with Apple then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218407)

> OS X

OSX only runs on the slow hardware. Try again.

Re:Not one reason to go with Apple then (1)

minkwe (222331) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218419)

And why should I even want OS X?

Re:Not one reason to go with Apple then (1)

hraefn (627340) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218485)

And why should I even want OS X?

You shouldn't. It's not for everyone. Stay on your side of the railroad tracks, thanks.

I'm personally not too concerned that my G5 is not the fastest desktop in the world. The speed of my processor defines who I am as much as my car does. Mac OS X is just really spiffy.

Re:Not one reason to go with Apple then (1)

Bodrius (191265) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218499)

Because on the desktop side of the story Linux is to OSX as SCO Unix is to... any other Unix out there.

Re:Not one reason to go with Apple then (0)

hammarlund (568027) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218411)

_You_ shouldn't.

Re:Not one reason to go with Apple then (1)

the_consumer (547060) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218416)

Chicks dig 'em.

Re:Not one reason to go with Apple then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218441)

Someone remind me why I should even consider a mac?

Because you've got more money than brains.

Re:Not one reason to go with Apple then (1)

aflat362 (601039) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218451)

The design of the hardware. Hardly think your liebermann example looks better than a mac laptop. The 15 looks alright, the 17 looks better(not better than a powerbook though) but look at the 16. Egad.

Plus going with a mac will take care of that annoying "money" problem. no doubt you'll want to get an iPod and other sleek accessories to go with your powerbook. You'll be money-free in no time!

Re:Not one reason to go with Apple then (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218478)

one reason, two words: you're gay!

Re:Not one reason to go with Apple then (1)

tomcio.s (455520) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218498)

Ehm. Because the link you are showing is a damn ripoff of apple site/look. same goes for the laptop there.

And as others pointed out: OSX.

Don't get me wrong. I work as a Linux developer. Haven't looked back into Windows camp in a long time, but OSX is just too nice to pass up. Run it at home for my primary OS, and let me tell you. Nothing, Windows or Linux can muster up will ever be as user friendly as OSX.

Have you seen their API's too? They are nice (here's the developer in me talking)...

Re:Not one reason to go with Apple then (1)

Surlyboi (96917) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218514)

Want design better than Apple's? liebermann

You're fucking kidding me, right? Every one of their
laptops but the 17" looks like a Dell re-hash and
the 17" looks like their designer stole Apple's
notes. The design of the desktops is top-notch... if
you're the kind that goes for mullets and muscle cars...

To each their own, I guess...

Re:Not one reason to go with Apple then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218528)

Someone remind me why I should even consider a mac?

Superior user interface, user experience, and a complete package where all parts and software were designed to work together?

Re:Not one reason to go with Apple then (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218532)

BSD underpinnings
Well-done GUI
MS Office, for those lovely proprietary file formats.
Next time I'm in the market, I'll be shopping hard for a MAC.

uhm... (3, Insightful)

kennedy (18142) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218337)

last time i checked the operon was to be the server class amd64 cpu, where as the athlon64 was to be the desktop version.

if you're going to compare workstation class chips, compare the freaking workstation class chips...

Re:uhm... (1, Interesting)

SignificantBit (677809) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218390)

and what exactly Apple will put put inside XServe servers? of for that matter, i think IBM is using PPC970 (aka G5) as server cpu too, isn't?

Re:uhm... (2, Interesting)

_|()|\| (159991) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218425)

compare the freaking workstation class chips

The Opteron 140 and 240 series are workstation-class chips. Put an Opteron or two in a box with a bunch of hard drives--it's a server; put it in a box with a $1,000 graphics card--it's a workstation.

Re:uhm... (2, Insightful)

Alizarin Erythrosin (457981) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218428)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they have dual processor workstations? IIRC, the Athlon 64 doesn't do SMP (excluding the FX51, which is just a rebranded Opteron).

So therefore, to have a dual processor AMD64 workstation, you'd need an Opteron. Case closed.

Re:uhm... (-1, Offtopic)

Frothy Walrus (534163) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218468)

"case closed"? are you that fag from the Relapse board?

p.s. hi DK!

Re:uhm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218469)

Opteron, like intels Xeon is for servers and (multi-cpu) workstations.

Athlon64 FX is for high-end desktops and perhaps single-cpu workstations.

Athlon64 is for desktop.

Also, Opteron and Athlon64FX is currently *the same chip*.

Compatibility Issues? (4, Interesting)

Caradoc (15903) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218339)

From the article:

"But upgrading to XP 64 could mean giving up functionality without getting much in return. In fact, XP 64 looks like a throwback to Windows past: Its interface mirrors that of Windows 2000 or even Win 98. Microsoft has not disclosed what else will be in the OS, so it is possible that you'll still get most of XP's other features.

XP 64 won't have the 32-bit XP's support for DOS apps at all, nor will it run 16-bit apps (but it should have no trouble with 32-bit software). More important, 64-bit drivers for common hardware, such as printers, will be scarce when the OS debuts."

In moving from a Dual 1GHz G4 (Quicksilver 2002) to a Dual 2GHz G5, I have yet to find any software incompatibilities - everything works just fine.

This may change once my copy of Panther shows up, but my printer and other hardware continue to work for now.

Windows? (-1, Troll)

turgid (580780) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218429)

What has Windows got to do with anything? Anyone doing anything serious on a computer nowadays uses a *NIX of some sort.

Re:Windows? (2, Insightful)

Caradoc (15903) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218443)

You mean like the different flavors of Solaris, Linux, and BSD I have running on the machines here in my lab?

Unfortunately, convincing "management" to let me run anything but Windows on a "company" machine is an exercise in futility.

Re:Windows? (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218472)

Unfortunately, convincing "management" to let me run anything but Windows on a "company" machine is an exercise in futility.

I used to work for people like that so I left and got a better paid job with someone else.

Re:Compatibility Issues? (0)

themo0c0w (594693) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218432)

Apples to oranges. The Opteron and Athlon 64 will run both 32-bit and 64-bit apps fine, just as the G4 will run older PPC code. Just because Windows XP 64 doesn't have DOS app compatibility mode doesn't mean that the chips can't run it.

Re:Compatibility Issues? (0)

supabeast! (84658) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218502)

"This may change once my copy of Panther shows up, but my printer and other hardware continue to work for now."

Of course they will. That's because Mac OS is NOT a 64-bit OS, and aside from the ability to address more than four gigabytes of RAM, Apple users do not actually get any benefit from the G5 being a 64-bit CPU.

Opteron users, however, can fire up a 64-bit Linux distro and start zipping right along, enjoying the benefits of a 64-bit CPU.

Guess this leaves Intel WAY behind, lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218353)

What did the Intel exec. say? "64 bit is not ready for the desktop" ?

Haa haa

ATHLON64 FX != Athlon 64 3200+ (1, Insightful)

thoolie (442789) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218354)

Someone should point out, that the CPU that is kind is the AthlonFX not the Athlong 64 3200+ (not to say the 3200+ ins't fast..). It looks like the G5 holds its own over the opteron and the 3200+ as well as against the P4.

It also states that different CPUS did better at different things, not making one worse off than the other. All of these CPUS are fast, very fast. It is just a matter of what you are doing with them. THEY ARE ALL GREAT CPUS. If you compare the prices for the AthlonFX to the dual G5, you will see a similar price/ performance ration as well, don't forget that either!

Just thought for food

Don't hate people because they are morons, hate people because they are jerks.

Re:ATHLON64 FX != Athlon 64 3200+ (1)

minkwe (222331) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218481)

Someone should point out that the Mac was running on 2 CPUS not 1 like the Athlon 64 and Athlon FX. Even so, both CPUs still trounced it in most of the tests. Does it matter if AthlonFX is different from Athlon 64? Both are desktop CPUs.

My 286 9Mhz CPU is also a GREAT CPU. Its good for my musium of computer history. Unfortunately it is not GREAT where speed is concern. So lets stick to speed when the article is talking about speed alright!

Re: Sizable Difference (1)

Bullseye_blam (589856) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218496)

Well, you say they're "all great CPU's," but there seems to be quite a large margin between these machines in most of the tests (Photoshop excluded, heh). But it remains fairly obvious to the outside viewer that any of the Intel / AMD options will be faster than the comparable G5, and cheaper as well.

And from the standpoint, the only reason anyone would pick the Mac over the PC would be OS X.

Re:ATHLON64 FX != Athlon 64 3200+ (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218504)

The G5 is as fast as an outdated 2.6 ghz PIV. Even a Vinalla PIV can beat it.

First workstation claim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218355)

I've never seen Apple claim to have the first 64 bit workstation. First 64 bit desktop maybe but not workstation. No idea how they distinguish the two, but please don't go putting words into Apple's mouth.

real benchmarks? or real world benchmarks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218358)

It seems to me that none of these aps were specifically compiled and optimised for either of the processors. While this coresponds to the real world (sometimes), it leaves me wondering how the numbers change in ideal conditions.

Retest with Panther (3, Insightful)

Spodie! (675056) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218360)

It might still get owned, but redoing the tests with the OS that the G5 was meant to run on will be a better comparison. What can it hurt, it's only 9 days away from release.

Re:Retest with Panther (1)

Bullseye_blam (589856) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218536)

Ok, at best there will be a 5-10% improvement. Does that really displace the times or scores that were nearly twice as slow as competitors?

How Tested (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218362)

Single disk versus RAID array...how much RAM etc etc (thanks for listing the gfx ram, that was great[end of sarcasm])...

Thats like comparing Apples and oranges (pun intended)

Next Week: the National Grid versus two half sucked lemons with electrodes (in parallel folks!!!)

Re:How Tested (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218519)

They're testing "desktop" applications... who has RAID (besides me) at home?

And the articled did say they used 1 GB DDR 400 RAM.

Re:How Tested (1)

TheMidget (512188) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218527)

Thats like comparing Apples and oranges (pun intended)

Shouldn't that be "comparing Apples and Lemons"

Bullshit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218370)

This "benchmark" is complete bullshit.
The Athlons have twice the RAM *AND* RAID hdds.
The CPU is definitly not the bottleneck for Q3.
And I dont wonder somehow that Word on x86 (Windows) outperforms Word on a Mac.
And the "real" Mac (Photoshop, Premiere) the Athlon is much slower. Such a crap.

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218402)

Er... "and for the real mac apps" ofcourse :)

Innovation really exists (5, Insightful)

weez75 (34298) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218375)

G5, Athlon64...any way you go it's an alternative to Intel. I think the importance isn't which is quicker but that they both offer serious alternative solutions to Intel which forces everyone to innovate. Both companies deserve credit for working toward better solutions for customers.

Why does this still feel like a victory? (1)

Nijika (525558) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218377)

Like... who do I root for here? AMD or Apple? I'm keen on both companies! Well at least if I build an AMD based Debian workstation won't be a sorry substitute for a G5.

Just as long as it's not Intel, I'm still quite happy.

sort of true (2, Insightful)

archen (447353) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218378)

It's still the fastest desktop processor, because there is no desktop OS that runs on the Opteron until Microsoft releases the XP version in 2004. And no, Linux is not a desktop OS - ie something regular people can use (yet).

I don't know why Apple shoots them selves in the foot with this speed BS anyway. Seriously I like my iBook for many reasons, but speed isn't one of them (because it's slow - although seems as fast as many PC laptops for some reason), but I'm willing to put up with a little drag to have a cool computer. They just aren't going to win the speed race and they need to realize that. They need to focus on the value of the overall computer where Apple is indeed ahead in many respects.

Re:sort of true (1)

Alizarin Erythrosin (457981) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218457)

It's still the fastest desktop processor, because there is no desktop OS that runs on the Opteron until Microsoft releases the XP version in 2004.

Interesting, because I can think of many reviews that I've read that ran benchmarks on WinXP (32 bit)... And IIRC, that's a desktop OS. I have it on my Laptop, and Win2k is a desktop OS too right? The Opteron can run that too... wow!

Re:sort of true (1)

thenextpresident (559469) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218466)

"And no, Linux is not a desktop OS - ie something regular people can use (yet)."

Yes it is. People seem to forget Linux was developed to be a desktop OS. Being a server was second.

Secondly, it's being used by regular people, now, today. I know them. These are the same people that didn't know how to do things on Windows, and while they still don't know how to do things on Linux, they think it's more fun.

Ouch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218380)

But sometimes it's about more than processor speed.

After dealing with various versions of Unix, Linux, Windows, and Apple boxen over the last 15 years, whenever a novice asks me what kind of box to get I tell 'em: "Get a Mac. The up-front costs are a bit higher, but it's stable, it doesn't have massive security problems, the hardware you can buy for it works pretty much right out of the box, and it's easy to use".

And besides, what novice needs a 64-bit Athlon at home? Because without Winbloat a 16MHz 386sx is probably fast enough for a Mac to read emails and surf AOL via a 28.8 dialup connection...

Shhhh.....! (3, Funny)

Beatbyte (163694) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218382)

...you'll wake the Mac zealots!

Re:Shhhh.....! (1)

Larry*boy.3 (621780) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218491)

its too late.

They're already here!!!

Respectable stats... (1)

Surlyboi (96917) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218384)

Now let's see how long it takes the software community
to catch up. Not long, I'd wager, before we're seeing
ridiculously torqued up system requirements for the
next version of Office. "A terrabyte of RAM? let's
render clippy on the fly in 12 dimensions and map
out all the quantum placeholders too!"

The floodgates are open... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218385)

A dual CPU G5 couldn't stand against a single CPU Athlon FX-51. Talk about the worlds fastest "Personal Computer".

And before all the Mango zealots start talking about OS-X not optimized for G5 or not yet 64 bit, think also that the Athlons were running in 32 bit on an OS not made by AMD.

Also before commenting on the RAID setup, make sure you compare the results with and without raid to see the effect.

Finally don't bother us with arguments about which apps should have been used or not.

It's just one benchmark and the G5 was trounced. For even more better trouncing of the G5 by the Athlon 64, check the recent German c't magazine.

The Benchmarks speak for themselves? (5, Insightful)

gunnk (463227) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218388)

So they compare 32-bit apps running on a 64-bit AMD chip to 32-bit apps running on a 64-bit G5 and conclude that the AMD chip is much faster than the G5.

This does nothing to benchmark the capabilities of the chips -- just the capability of the chips to run non-native apps.

Go back to your lives, citizens, nothing to see here...

Re:The Benchmarks speak for themselves? (1)

FuzzzyLogik (592766) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218487)

true, BUT, it's not possible today to really benchmark these CPU's with 64 bit apps, as there are no common apps between the processors... that would also kinda rule out running any 64 bit apps on the AthlonXP and P4 wouldn't it? for now, using the 32bit part of the AthlonFX is about all we'll be doing... until microsoft gets on the ball with the 64 bit edition of windows... until then, we have to settle...

Surprised by single CPU keeping up with dual CPU (1)

laird (2705) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218393)

I was surprised that a single CPU Opteron could be in the same performance ballpark as a dual CPU G5. Does the Opteron do more per clock cycle than the G5? Are applications not taking advantage of the second processor? Is there some other performance bottleneck, such as the memory subsystem? I look forward to finding out...

Can you imagine (no joke)... (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218398)

Since everybody is talking about how Apple should have moved to a x86 processor, what if Apple finally makes this decision, and uses AMD 64?

I mean, it would make sense: Darwin could (is) be compatible with x86 (all is needed is a true 64 OS from Apple, which does not exist for the G5 - yet), all you would need is to recompile the higher layers: Acqua, QuickTime (which is AFAIK much simpler than porting lower parts of the OS) and Software (easy too)

After all, G5 also uses Hypertransport...

Re:Can you imagine (no joke)... (4, Insightful)

weez75 (34298) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218495)

It sounds simple, but in reality moving to an x86 platform doesn't make sense from a technical nor business stance.

First, it's not as simple as recompiling a few things at the "higher layers." All of Apple's partners would have to port their applications as well. Porting apps is not as simple as you'd like to think--see the OpenOffice port to OSX.

Second, moving to commodity hardware of x86 would turn Apple into just another software company. Apple very much is a hardware company and its the marriage of that hardware with exceptional software that makes their advocates voracious in their support.

AMD has nice stuff but if Apple were to use their processors they would be proprietary and for use by Apple only. The processor would be designed and built from the ground up for Apple--sharing next to nothing with AMD's other offerings.

So for now, let's just be happy that AMD and Apple both have cool stuff.

Is this anything new? (1)

ArmenTanzarian (210418) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218406)

I thought everything that we've heard [slashdot.org] said that the G5 was good in parallel and was generally mediocre for integer performance...

benchmarks speak for themselves? (-1, Offtopic)

proj_2501 (78149) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218412)

submission = flamebait.
AGAIN

Not Even Close??? (1)

El_Ge_Ex (218107) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218415)

Great!? This seems more like 8 pages of AMD advertising than anything else.



Not even close!?! More like: Not even Scientific!

-B

Sigh... (0)

thenextpresident (559469) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218417)

"Apple has made many claims to be the first, fastest and only 64-bit processor for the desktop and workstation market"

No, it never has.

It has made claims that it has the first desktop with a 64 bit processor, and that it's has the fastest desktop out there.

Since when has a AMD or even Intel put out a desktop? Dell and HP do, I know that. But AMD and Intel don't.

Re:Sigh... (1)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218497)

Exactly. Show me where I can buy an AMD64-based home computer at the mall, which gets the same kind of results as we're seeing in these benchmarks, and then you can say that you've beaten Apple.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and benchmarks.

Trounced? With this kind of comment? joke... (3, Insightful)

djupedal (584558) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218422)

"Our test suite, PC WorldBench 4, cannot run on Macs. The new Macs aren't great values either, as the top-of-the-line G5 ($3549 as configured) costs about $200 more than the similarly configured Alienware Aurora.

The dual-G5 sparkled in one main area: our Photoshop test, which it completed in 18 seconds, or about 17 percent faster than the Aurora's 21 seconds. The 1.8-GHz single-chip G5 ($2999) trailed at 27 seconds.

Elsewhere, the Alienware earned top marks, performing particularly well in the Premiere QuickTime test."

======

>>$200.00 is nothing and no direct testing comparision is funny.... This is pure marketing hype.

Re:Trounced? With this kind of comment? joke... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218479)

$200.00 is nothing and no direct testing comparision is funny
$200 is about 7%, which strikes me as a pretty hefty saving. With that $200 I could buy a new suit, or an new NetMD MiniDisc player...

Eh, I'm still buying a G5 (4, Interesting)

meta-monkey (321000) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218424)

I think the jury's still out. We haven't seen OS's or applications optimized for either platform. However, both systems are still pretty damn fast. I think it's going to come down to what you like best. Personally, I like OSX better than Windows or Linux on the desktop. OSX gives me all the power and stability of Linux, and it's easier to use and prettier than Windows, and it runs Photoshop. I'm a photographer, so that's pretty important to me. I still run Linux on my servers, though...those Mac servers are ridiculously expensive.

Re:Eh, I'm still buying a G5 (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218484)

Also, they used Photoshop 7 for the Photoshop tests. Does Photoshop CS [adobe.com] (that's the name for Photoshop 8, which is coming out in November) have optimizations for the G5?

Apple claim no such thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218426)

I quote;

"The Power Mac G5 is the world's fastest personal computer and the first with a 64-bit processor"

They are not claiming the "the first, fastest and only 64-bit processor for the desktop and workstation market" as StewedSquirrel barfs.

The key word in Apple's claim is *personal* and looking at the prices at the time of that claim to 64-bit systems I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single 64-bit CPU solution in the same price bracket let alone dual processor.

Learn to read.

Apple G5 Gets Trounced By Athlon64 (1)

pebs (654334) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218433)

File this one under "duh"

And as for the dept:

from the os-x-doesn't-run-so-hot-on-athlon dept.

should be:

from the os-x-doesn't-run-on-athlon-at-all-dept.

Apples & Apples (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218440)

Hmm...G5 systems with standard ATA hard drives and 128mb of graphics memory being compared to systems with RAID and 256mb of graphics memory? Those quicktime renders and search/replace operations are heavy on the disk access, I wonder why the G5 might possibly lag behind....

If you prefer a more reputable source that actually bothered to configure their systems similarly: PC Magazine [pcmag.com]

The new Macs are fast enough to even inspire debate, which is a shocking development; if you want to buy a Mac, you no longer have to be ashamed of throwing money away. As for platform bashing...sheesh, aren't people on this site always begging for a reasonable alternative to Wintel? You should all be cheering for Apple....

Aliens & Aliens (1)

g_bit (253703) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218511)

Yeah, but the Alienware machines cost less than a G5. I don't care if the hardware isn't the same, that's the point!

I shouldn't have to *lower* my standards so I can be fair to Apple.

lets ignore the fact (1)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218449)

that the software choices except for Photoshop are not designed we for OS X (premier runs in Classic for christ sake)

these bench marks are useless since they used software that runs like crap on Macs anyway.

not very good benchmarks (1)

Chromal (56550) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218509)

Oh hell. Did you look at those benchmarks? I hate this sort of performance comparison because it's really testing system and application performance. (e.g.: My apple is bigger than your orange, hence better.)

Besides the fact that this is an application test (e.g.: render times and frame rates), many of the included tests are not even on equivalent hardware (e.g.: did anyone else noteice that more than half of the Atlon "benchmarks" had twice as much RAM and a RAID system running where the Apple didn't?).

Give us a real test, or shove over, pcworld. Cruft like this is why I stopped reading Ziff-Davis years ago.

Sheesh, and people complain about apple's BMs (5, Insightful)

RalphBNumbers (655475) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218510)

Did you look at the apps they compared the G5s and the Athlon64s with?

Word- It's Microsoft, no shit it's going to be faster on windows, who would have guessed that?
Premiere - The video app that sucks so hard on mac that Adobe stoped making it. Try the same functions on FCP and watch it come out a few times faster.
Quake 3 - A game, 'cause you know macs are what everyone uses for gaming, and developers spend just as much time optimising their mac versions.

Photoshop - The only relavant and fair app they bothered to test, and the G5 is noticablly faster than any of the Athlon 64 systems, beaten only by the Opteron.

And /. calls this a trouncing?

This is a joke of a benchmark (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7218515)

I cannot believe this is taken seriously on Slashdot.

Let's look into this more closely: the PCWorld team tested only four applications, one being Microsoft Word, FFS, and another being Premiere, which is no more supported on the Mac, runs in Classic and is leagues behind Final Cut Pro in terms of performance, as anyone with a clue in Mac video processing will tell you. This alone qualifies this comparison as biased in my book.

Where is the After Effects test ? And where is the Mathematica test ? Did you only know that any G5 will trounce an Athlon 64 in these apps ?

Also, looking at the results, I can hardly call it "trouncing the Mac". Only one in the four apps make use of the 2GHz' second CPU (Photoshop), and dutifully the G5 beats the PC in this test, and the scores in the other tests (not counting the Premiere's joke of an application) are not even that far apart.

Lies, damn lies, statistics, advertisements and benchmarks.

Speed isn't everything (1)

Sillypuddy (553215) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218516)

I was a diehard PC user until I got my ibook. I use it as my main computer because of the ease of use, the user friendly programs that come in the box. I can do all my video editing and such on programs that are easy yet powerful compare to the PC.

-joe

What? (4, Insightful)

Kirby-meister (574952) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218523)

Aside from benchmarking Word for Mac against Word for Windows of all things, what does this actually prove? That Macs don't run software as well as Windows does when it comes to software that has been available for Windows longer? I'd be more interested in a price comparison between the systems.

No software-RAID setup on the Mac? Why RAID on the other machines?

Seems kind of one-sided.

One thing to think about... (1)

ArbiterOne (715233) | more than 10 years ago | (#7218538)

Most people (the majority of computer users) do not need 3+ GHz for a computer. If all you are running is Microsoft Word, the difference between 2.5 and 3 GHz is not going to be all that noticeable. Unless you run extremely high-end games or are heavily into video rendering or something extremely processor intensive, you won't normally notice it at all. Also, it didn't say whether there would be a fast bus speed. Unless there is, there's not much point in having an extremely fast processor, is there?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>