xiberia Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 ... they're just a 25% faster. http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/01/23/in...cs_25pc_faster/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swad Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Good ole Steve and his hyperbole... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluedragon1971 Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 FWIW, Apple never said the iMacs were 4 times faster, they said that about the MacBook Pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryder Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 FWIW, Apple never said the iMacs were 4 times faster, they said that about the MacBook Pro. Yes, they said that the processor in the new Intel iMac is 2-3x faster. The processor might be faster, the whole machine isn't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigxcpu Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 (edited) Of course, if they're using the same {censored} video boards, RAM, chipset. There is no such thing as "two times faster" in the computing world when you compare same time devices. Edited January 24, 2006 by sigxcpu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darktear Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Actually they said that with those test they runned, the macs where 2-4x faster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duktape Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 why complain? 25% faster for the same price, and a chance to run x86 programs with darwine doesnt seem all that bad to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 (edited) "Based on estimated results of industry-standard SPECint and SPECfp rate tests" Says it all. I don't remember him ever saying "All your applications will run 3x faster!" Anyone with half a clue knows those tests don't mean jack s*** in real life. It was just a marketing exercise - has anyone ever managed to get their car to equal the economy quotes in the specs? No. Does anyone really expect the manufacturers not to embelish a little? No. Edited January 24, 2006 by 0uch!p0tat0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alicheusz Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Always look what benchmark is running. Apple chose SPECint and SPECfp rate because this benchmark show potential of many cores. I think there isn’t any other benchmark that will show better difference between those CPUs (G5 vs coreduo), or better, one core per chip processor vs two core processor or more. Just look at results from spec http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/rint2000.html Advanced Micro Devices Pogo Linux PerformanceWare 3566, AMD Opteron 865 4 cores, 2 chips, 2 cores/chip 50.1 55.8 Advanced Micro Devices Pogo Linux PerformanceWare 3566, AMD Opteron 865 8 cores, 4 chips, 2 cores/chip 104 110 PowerEdge 6650 (2.0 GHz Xeon MP) 2 cores, 2 chips, 1 core/chip (Hyper-Threading Technology disabled) 18.1 18.7 PowerEdge 6650 (2.0 GHz Xeon MP) 4 cores, 4 chips, 1 core/chip (Hyper-Threading Technology disabled) 33.9 34.7 Each core is like another processor one core processor will be almost twice slow in this test than two core processor .... Apple compare 1.4 GHz G4 or 2.1 GHz one core G5 to dual core 2 GHz Intel. Why they don’t compare with power mac 2 GHz dual core G5? This would be real PowerPC vs Intel This benchmark is not mean that everything will be super fast. This isn’t real life apps usage test. For presentation is super, numbers are high and Steve can say what high end his new computer is. I don’t say that new intel Mac are piece of {censored}. I say that Apple company are very good in promotion. Steve say new scores on his presentation and crowd are yelling, half of them are Apple workers . Apple know how to make you fill that you need this stuff. You buy it, try and say “ oh, this isn’t 4 times faster, but is mine. I wont it from a long time” Steve make that. They say that they make 5 OS in 5 last years. That’s impressed and you pay for each os and change hardware instantly to suit it. Apple just make cash. This spec are one of way to do that. Please don’t blame me for my English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Elliott Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Apple compare 1.4 GHz G4 or 2.1 GHz one core G5 to dual core 2 GHz Intel. Why they don’t compare with power mac 2 GHz dual core G5? This would be real PowerPC vs Intel Look again at the figures that Apple produced, they compared the 1.67GHz powerbook G4 to the 1.83GHz Macbook Pro (I assume they used their fastest Macbook Pro here), and the 2.1 GHz iMac (G5 single core) to the 2GHz iMac (intel core duo). They weren't comparing processors and saying that this processor is faster than that one, they were comparing the top two products of the same type, using a dual core G5 would not give a fair comparison since they haven't released any direct replacement for the PowerMac yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Its ironic that the people those meaningless benchmarks are aimed at are the people least equipped to understand what they actually mean. Ormaybe that's just marketing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alicheusz Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 (edited) Look again at the figures that Apple produced, they compared the 1.67GHz powerbook G4 to the 1.83GHz Macbook Pro (I assume they used their fastest Macbook Pro here), and the 2.1 GHz iMac (G5 single core) to the 2GHz iMac (intel core duo). You are right, I don't check GHz before post. They weren't comparing processors and saying that this processor is faster than that one, they were comparing the top two products of the same type, using a dual core G5 would not give a fair comparison since they haven't released any direct replacement for the PowerMac yet. This is first product of Intel Mac and for now is ok. It must past some time to developers can release professional universal apps. These would be no sense make PowerMac on Intel that must use rosetta apps. I think it must be more GHz on Intel to beat dual core G5. You are right that they compare "products of the same type" They use benchmark that show biggest difference between then. Normal user who like mac os because “they just works”, don’t understood what that scores mean. Hi is focused on 2 x faster and 4 times faster. Later hi is little disappointment, this topic is proven that. Edited January 25, 2006 by alicheusz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts