PDA

View Full Version : Apple has a response to those allegations.



Ade
06-25-2003, 02:21 AM
Apple PR response (http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/03/06/24/2154256.shtml?tid=126&tid=181)

Beamtracer
06-25-2003, 02:46 AM
All benchmarks are inaccurate. That goes just as much for Windows boxes.

Anyway... we had a real world test in front of our eyes. On stage with Steve Jobs we witnessed Brad Peebler using the new Luxology app, which he showed run twice as fast on the G5 Mac as it would on any Pentium.

rick_r
06-25-2003, 06:45 AM
I think it's great that we have a super fast mac, but Apple is charging way too much (again). I think it will only hurt them in the end.

Red_Oddity
06-25-2003, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by Beamtracer
All benchmarks are inaccurate. That goes just as much for Windows boxes.

Anyway... we had a real world test in front of our eyes. On stage with Steve Jobs we witnessed Brad Peebler using the new Luxology app, which he showed run twice as fast on the G5 Mac as it would on any Pentium.

Real world in what sense?
A piece of alpha/beta software that has been optimised for what?
It's another piece of software and benchmark no-one can reproduce...
Also, what videocards do they use? (G5 with a Quadro FX2000 and a Pentium with a Ati all in wonder 128?...what?)

I'll just wait till i have one of those machines standing next to my current G4 and then see the difference (i'm not even gonna compare it to any PC now, because god knows what will happen when they hit market around the end of the year (G5, Athlon64, Pentium 5...)

eblu
06-25-2003, 07:38 AM
right.
all this arguing is being done on the surface of quicksand. None of the stats being tossed around have any validity.

proof is of course, in the pudding. we'll see after august, just what we've got here.

From what I've seen of the machine's designs, there is no reason to think that it is not Very fast.

as for price... yeah they charge a premium, and there were years where it wasnt worth paying. But in my humble opinion, ever since the release of the BW g3, Apple has been earning that premium, with top notch design, high quality parts, working out the bottlenecks, and listening to customer demand. This "g5" appears to be exactly what the high end mac users have been clamoring for, and its amazing to see them on the bleeding edge of standards, in every part of the machine for once.

Lamont
06-25-2003, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by rick_r
I think it's great that we have a super fast mac, but Apple is charging way too much (again). I think it will only hurt them in the end. What are you talking about? Alienware, Dell, Compaq and IBM offer machines at the same price or higher.

If there were companies who made other options for Mac based hardware (mo-bos, processors, cases) then this really would not be a problem.

skippy
06-25-2003, 01:49 PM
yeah..the machines have maintained the same 3- tiered system for a few years: the prices are the same..you just get more computer.

Lamont
06-25-2003, 01:52 PM
Same with Apple. It's really great that they are going with DDR ram... and using newer technology (that's common to PC platforms as well..)

js33
06-25-2003, 02:11 PM
The problem is Apple charges the high end prices but then skimps on the ram, video card, no monitor, cheap speakers, one button mouse etc...
I know you can do a build to order but then the machines get really expensive to get them up to the level of components you get with a Dell, IBM, Alienware, etc...then the price competitiveness goes right out the window.

I hope finally you will be able to get a decent 3D card for these G5s or you're right back in the same boat with crippled hardware.

Cheers,
JS

cresshead
06-25-2003, 04:15 PM
one button mouse?
your kidding right?
how on earth can ANYONE do anything with a one button mouse in 2003!!!...sounds very uncutting edge...super fast pc but you have to interface it like your wearing mittens!

can mac's use three button mice with a scrolling wheel???
i sure hope so as i couldn't use lightwave or maya without them.

steve g

Lamont
06-25-2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by cresshead
can mac's use three button mice with a scrolling wheel???
i sure hope so as i couldn't use lightwave or maya without them. Yeah, right clicks and all that jazz... you can put any USB mouse and it will run.

Johnny
06-25-2003, 04:20 PM
I'm using a trackball with 4 buttons, and have them all configured to do different jobs..

I think that I can even set the buttons to perform differently depending upon the application I'm in.

all for about $40 US

J

js33
06-25-2003, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by cresshead
one button mouse?
your kidding right?
how on earth can ANYONE do anything with a one button mouse in 2003!!!...sounds very uncutting edge...super fast pc but you have to interface it like your wearing mittens!

can mac's use three button mice with a scrolling wheel???
i sure hope so as i couldn't use lightwave or maya without them.

steve g

Oh you can use any mouse you want BUT Apple only gives you a one button mouse. So then you have to throw that away and buy a real one. I use an MS scroll wheel optical 4 button mouse on my iMac but it came with a ONE button mouse.

Cheers,
JS

DaveW
06-25-2003, 05:30 PM
Getting back on topic, it looks like the Apple response only talks about the SPEC tests. No matter what you do to the computers, SPEC testing here is worthless. SPEC is really only useful for comparing compilers and similar hardware, not completely different architectures. There are still issues with the other tests performed. And I'd love to know why they didn't go up against a dual Opteron workstaton from Boxx; maybe because they're cheaper and faster? :)

The Photoshop test I don't believe simply because Steve has tried that too many times in the past and somehow only he manages to get those results. The Luxology test is worthless too, we don't know anything at all about it. Maybe the version they ran was just better optimized for PPC, maybe it was optimized for 64 bit processors or maybe this is one of those situations where Altivec beats the pants off of SSE2. We won't really know until it's released.

I would like to see an unbiased 3rd party take a stock G5 and a stock Boxx Opteron and do a fresh install of some commonly used apps that are as platform agnostic as you can get (Photoshop, Quake 3, LW or C4D) and run some benchmarks. The hard part is finding an unbiased 3rd party to do the tests.

More important than benchmarks though, Apple is finally going to release a system that, performance-wise, competes well against PC's. It's been a while since we've seen that, and it's good news for Mac and PC users alike.

riki
06-25-2003, 05:41 PM
GOOGLES BENCHMARKS

This is pretty funny, Google posted it's own benchmarks :)

http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html

dfc
06-26-2003, 02:36 AM
I just went to Boxxtech's site and configged the base model opteron to similar (or as close to it) specs as the G5..and it came out to right at 3 grand.

With that, the base opteron has more memory standard.

But, you have to add, the firewire ports, the network card, the DVD ram..and upgrade the drive to the 8meg cache one (the Boxx drives are ATA 133)

I think they are pretty comparably prices..excpet apple charges an arm and a leg for extra ram.

Other interesting thing was..on the Boxx opteron..there was only the option to install up to 4 gigs of ram. The G5 can go to 8 gigs.

Is that because of a Windows limitation?

Red_Oddity
06-26-2003, 02:36 AM
LOL...that's one of the funniest benchmarks ever...:p :p

Ade
06-26-2003, 03:55 AM
G5 also faster bus, advanced cooling system

BUT

only 2 HD's
1 CD drive



Thats why i never buy first gen macs...

Zarathustra
06-26-2003, 09:33 AM
For years I've periodically looked at the pricing for a serious PC workstation and it always comes out to be as high or higher then Mac. Yes, argue the speed issue all you want and the access to higher end video cards...those are the 2 sticking points for me, but price really isn't.
I will concede it would be cheaper to build a PC farm, since you can easily order a stripped to the bone PC which you can't for Mac.

We just have to wait until someone gets one and runs all the LW benchmark scenes and see how it does.

Lamont
06-26-2003, 09:49 AM
Anyone have problems exspanding their Mac (any version) may want to consider building another case with just hard drives. I made one for someone in the office (PC) with two 17 gb SCSI and two 34gb SCSI. You can grab a cheap ATX case and whammo. The only problem I had was finding just a switch for power supply.

Lightwolf
06-26-2003, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by dfc
Other interesting thing was..on the Boxx opteron..there was only the option to install up to 4 gigs of ram. The G5 can go to 8 gigs.

Is that because of a Windows limitation?
I think this becuas of either a board limitation, or a limitation of available RAM Modules. Most Opteron boards can take 16GB.

Lightwolf
06-26-2003, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by Ade
G5 also faster bus...

That depends, Opterons share memory differently, with the RAM being attached directly to the processor, on a per processor basis, while the G5s share the same bus to the RAM.
Cheers,
Mike

cresshead
06-26-2003, 12:49 PM
brad peebler has a comment up on the lux site re the performance of the g5.

steve g

Lightwolf
06-27-2003, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by cresshead
brad peebler has a comment up on the lux site re the performance of the g5.
With all due respect, What Lux apprently tested was realtime playback, and while he stated that both boxes use the same GFX board, I assume (knowing the track record of ATI on windows), that the raw openGL performance under windows is lower than the performance under MacOSX. I assume!!! If this is not the case, great.
But while the ATI boards smoke nVidia on all DX / gaming oriented benchmarks, using openGL they lose ground fast, especially with "pro" apps. I would assume that the Mac openGL driver for ATI is a bit more pro (...since you can't get the identical "pro" boards for the mac, which on the PC basically only have a different driver set).

Putting that aside, I heard from someone who actually sat in front of a G5 that it is almost as good as the Amiga was, it eases the pain. Now _that_ would be a reason for me to switch. :D

My 2 cents...
Cheers,
Mike - who still wants to see some real benches for the G5

Karl Hansson
06-27-2003, 04:48 AM
As I understand it the Lux application used the CPU for the realtime playback not the GPU. And they didnt even use altivec for that.