NASA Benchmarks the New G5 Powermac
It seems quite possible that Apple wanted vindication for their benchmark "fiasco" (perhaps too strong a word, so forgive me), and this third-party (NASA) with a previous investment in the G4 (the super computer!) might have produced results they favor. I'm not sure I would say that these are nearly as biased (they didn't go out of the way to make the G5 score better this time), and perhaps it's entirely possible they only have licenses for that particular FORTRAN compiler. I don't know, really. There may be sufficient reason to criticize the methodology of the testing for anyone naive enough to consider this an effective comparison of the P4 to the G5 (neither compiler was necessarily the best for its platform), but I personally don't see sufficient evidence to say that the people responsible acted with any intentional bias, unlike what is routinely seen from Apple marketing campaigns.
I realize that Slashdot is in perpetual advertisement for Apple, but I think the userbase is best served by waiting until large numbers of people can provide benchmarks for comparison. Indulging in replying to the trolling that the editors provide is just a waste of energy at this point.
You have exactly 314 seconds to come up with a less retarded plot.
No, silly zealots, you can't censor me.