Submitted by “The only benchmark where the PowerPC-based Mac mini outperformed the Intel-based Mac mini was Stdlib Allocate, which is also the only benchmark where the PowerBook G4 outperformed the MacBook Pro. The Stdlib Allocate benchmark depends more on standard library performance than raw hardware performance. It’s also worth mentioning that the Intel-based Mac minis were, for the most part, faster than our baseline system (a PowerMac G5 1.6GHz). Yikes. Overall, we’re impressed with the Intel-based Mac mini’s performance.”
HORSE DEAD! PLEASE STOP BEATING!
enough with the mac mini/macbook benchmarks. This is aggravating.
enough with the mac mini/macbook benchmarks. This is aggravating.
Then don’t comment and/or read that particular story. It’s really that simple. Amazing, isn’t it, boys and girls?
/me agrees with Thom.
If you don’t like it or are sick of it, then don’t read and especially offer comments that are destructive to the nature of a mature discussion. So you’re tired of hearing about all the new Apple hype. Jsut as there are many of us who are tired of hearing the endless Microsoft prattle. And I’m sure there are those of us who are tired of hearing about Linux, etc., etc. Truth is OSNews is the kinda place where your gonna keep hearing about stuff in the world of computing. And yeah, you proly will hear the same or similar stuff over and over and over again. It’s called different points of view. And you know what? I for one love it. The differentness of it all. I imagine I’m not alone there.
/my 2 pounds-sterling
Jed
Just stop talking and buy one. Anyone should know that it’s faster than it’s G5 relatives.
Just stop talking and buy one. Anyone should know that it’s faster than it’s G5 relatives.
Everyone outside of Apple 6 or 12 months ago that is.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050331085414/www.apple.com/powermac/
The link is to Archive.org’s Way Back Machine (cache) of Apple’s benchmarks last April.
If you’re referring to the Photoshop benchmark you’re going to obtain the following responses:
The Core Duo isn’t the Pentium 4/Xeon/FX-53. Even though Core Duo’s SSE implementation isn’t its strong-point, that it isn’t (and couldn’t be) included there means nothing.
The G5 is better at SIMD operations than the Pentium 4/Xeon/FX-53. Therefore it really was faster.
Apple didn’t switch for the Core Duo, they switched for Intel’s future roadmap. Conroe is 10-20% faster than an overclocked FX-60 in various benchmarks while being significantly cooler than the Pentium 4!
IBM couldn’t compete. Ok, now I’m tired of typing this. You’ve seen all of this before by now.
All you’re doing is inviting a flamewar.
“All you’re doing is inviting a flamewar.”
Not so sure this is a fair reaction. When you read the article, you come on the statement:
It’s also worth mentioning that the Intel-based Mac minis were, for the most part, faster than our baseline system (a PowerMac G5 1.6GHz). Yikes.
Then you go back and refresh your memory about the relative sizes of the two beasts, and the claims that were made for the floor standing G5s, and the heat and noise issues, it does make you think a bit. The G5s were/are real floor standing behemoths, weigh a ton, full of fans, elaborate cooling. You look at the photos of the insides that he has linked to and if you don’t know something about case design and processors, you think, wow, this is really high end.
Before the move to Intel, the marketing message was about superior power and better architecture in a quality package. Then all of a sudden it turns out that in a tiny box, not particularly high end, not really designed for performance, the above quote holds.
What he is feeling and suggesting is something like, it was all lies. And well, I’m afraid it was. It really was just all lies. People may not like to hear it, the company may have had little other choice…but its what happened.
It’s not a matter of whether Apple lies or misleads, it’s just that there is no fruitful discussion left in the universe that would come of it. There are too many obvious “flaws” in the comment made, and the same argument manifests constantly everywhere between the Apple Faithful and the Self-Appointed Enforcers of Truth. Someone will find one of those “flaws” and then the discussion will consist of arguing minutiae with at least one party sticking to arguing the unknowable as if it were some certainty. Perhaps if we all ignore these articles and the repeat discussions that follow them they’ll go away.
For lots of people, there is no fruitful discussion to come out of pointing out many things which they do not want to hear. That does not mean we should not do it. Its about making sure misinformation is registered, and the credibility of the organisations and advocates is properly assessed.
The fact is, all the stuff that was put out by Apple, and echoed endlessly by the advocates, about the merits of the G5 compared to Intel was lies, and known to be lies at the time; and this can now be seen, now that the equally highly touted Intel Mini is out. This is important.
The same is true of the debate about whether the Macs really are the same price as or cheaper than other brands. You will keep on having the Mac advocates asserting the contrary, and it is important to keep on pointing it out to be false.
Similarly, Rayiner’s article on the G5 was important, and disliked strongly by some, because it punctured many of the myths about hardware quality.
Apple is a company that thrives on and encourages misreprentation of the qualities of the product line by its customer-advocates. It has adopted many of the propaganda techniques of unsavoury political and religious organisations; and just as other ‘big lies’ in other areas of life should be resisted, these should be too.
Edited 2006-03-11 09:03
Repeating the same discussion doesn’t do anything. It doesn’t solve anything or change anyone. If you were to spend your time on such a pursuit it should be in the construction of a unambiguously factual document not terribly unlike a FAQ though well-sourced for which The Truth may be pointed to, rather than weak flamebait. It isn’t an important activity (Oh, we’ll show that Apple Computer a thing or two about misleading marketing! Corporate world, I stab at thee!) but really one that just generates nonproductive carbon copy discussions that result in both parties being just as firmly annoying to the rest of the world as before.
The transition to Yonah doesn’t make Apple’s previous claims false on their face. Saying whether they are false (as opposed to misleading) or not would require more detailed examination, that most of the time isn’t even possible because of the intentional vagueness of Apple’s performance claims. Suggesting that they are misleading (by providing evidence of where the G5 clearly is weaker) is easier but so long as you cannot dislodge the official numbers from Apple with certainty at a task that isn’t even well-specified The Faithful will claim victory, and simply (and irrefutably) suggest that the results of that test are indicative of their workload rather than the results of your test. To which the Enforces of Truth will (irrefutably) claim that their results are indicative of their usage patterns. Even if by some miracle of Apple’s own incompetence at maintaining vagueness they provide a repeatable benchmark that you can clearly demonstrate as being wrong or misleading, they will simply tell you that all companies mislead with marketing and that anyone that believes marketing material is an idiot. You’re only stroking your own sense of righteousness in having that discussion. The G4 and G5 are out. It’s over. Get over it. It’s not topical whether Apple was full of shit one, two, or three years ago. This discussion is about a benchmark of dubious merit being run on an Intel Mini. Apple’s literature has always claimed that Yonah offers better “performance per watt” than equivalent-model G4 and G5-based computers, and that’s all The Faithful will ever need to ignore any other comments.
I may have missed it, but I have never seen Apple compare the G5 to the core duo, or the G4 for that matter before the launch of the new intelmac line.
Therefore, it would have been hard for Apple to mislead G5 vs core duo performance if they never made a statement.
The only previous comparisons I saw from Apple were G5 vs Pentium IV , XEon, and earlier chips.
That being said:
As a multiplatform user, in my anecdotal experience my G5 system outperforms my P4 system.
However I am not naive, I realize that all (that should be ALL) companies misrepresent, exagerate, or shall we say marked their product. Apple does as well.
Apple will not directly compare the speed of a G5 to a core duo until they have moved nearly every G5 off their shelves and out of their warehouses. If they would start telling everybody how fast the core duo is compared to a G5, people might not buy the powermac G5 or at best, Apple would have to lower it’s prices on them substantially.
I’ve talked to a few Mac guys and the really hard core ones know all the specs about the G4, G5, core solo, and core duo, but most that I know really only know Apple changed processors to intel and they only know what apple tells them (which may or may not be true)
Bottom line, if apple says the core duo is faster then the G5, the latter group of people i talked about won’t buy a powermac G5 (unless it’s way cheaper).
edited for spelling and punctuation
Edited 2006-03-11 14:38
Apple directly compares the speed of a single-processor G5 in the iMac to a Core Duo. They aren’t going to advertise that the Core Duo is faster at most computational tasks than the Powermacs they’re selling for a couple of grand a pop. The G4 was sold in desktops well beyond the point where it was performance-competitive in general computing. The G4 was sold in laptops even longer, despite that the Pentium M has been available for many years now ready and able to slap it around performance-wise at a variety of tasks. Apple doesn’t offer a lot of advice to its customers about maximizing CPU performance/dollar. The Core Duo will almost assuredly never find a place in a Powermac replacement, and Conroe will usher in the Powermac replacement at x.y times faster than the previous Powermac. Anyone looking to buy a Mac should realize this, even if Apple doesn’t tell them specifically that in a few months the Powermac replacement will be faster. What, do they expect them to release slower Powermacs? People shouldn’t exactly be scrambling to spend a few thousand dollars on a Pentium Extreme Edition system right now, either if they want the best performance return for their dollar.
I would like to see some benchmarks about the noise output of the two models of Mac Mini.
Also, on an unrelated note, does anyone know roughly when Leapord, the next verion of OS X is expected to be released?
Thanks.
Browser: Mozilla/4.51 (compatible; Opera 3.62; EPOC; 640×480)
Also, on an unrelated note, does anyone know roughly when Leapord, the next verion of OS X is expected to be released?
At WWDC 2005 it was announced that Leopard was scheduled for late 2006, early 2007.
All I know is this:
1. I don’t trust benchmarks
2. I bought a mini core duo for my wife, and with 2 gigs of memory, this thing screams. She couldn’t be happier with it.
(And no, she doesn’t play Quake or even know what Quake is. She is the 93% of computing market who could care less.)
As a techie, I feel like I got great value for the money spent. Front Row alone is worth the price of entry.