I was at spymac, and one of the links was g4 g5 and amd benchmarks.
amd 2000 + got 127.4 seconds, while the 1.6 g5 got a 158.2 seconds,
lower is better.

I am using a mac, I prefer them to PC's. But the macidiots were
trolling hardcore when they said the g5 would spank the shit out of a pc.

I went to the place I buy my pc's from, because
a) they have 1 800 tech support
b) its free for life
c) they give really good service,
and configured a amd 2000 to the specs of the g5 :

AthlonXP,2000PR Palomino, 1.67Ghz
Asus,A7N8X-Deluxe, DDR400, sound, LAN, 8x AGP,1394, SATA
DDR333,256Mb DDR 333Mhz PC-2700
Seagate, 80.0Gb Serial ATA, 7200rpm (8Mb cache)
Pioneer,DVR-105 DVD-RW IDE OEM
Intel,56k Data/Fax/Voice, PCI
Intel,Gigabit Ethernet Adapter PCI
Chaintech,8x GeForce FX 5200 128Mb DDR w/TV, DVI
Codegen,6061 Aluminum Mid-ATX case 350W P/S Screwless
Total: $ 789.00 (with 1 year warranty. it is a tested and burned in
computer, not parts.)

Almost 1/3rd the price yet it was faster than the g5. Only downside:
doesnt run os x.

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 16:42:30 GMT, no <no[at]no.com> transmitted the
following electrons:

>I was at spymac, and one of the links was g4 g5 and amd benchmarks.
>amd 2000 + got 127.4 seconds, while the 1.6 g5 got a 158.2 seconds,
>lower is better.
>
>I am using a mac, I prefer them to PC's. But the macidiots were
>trolling hardcore when they said the g5 would spank the shit out of a pc.
>
>I went to the place I buy my pc's from, because
>a) they have 1 800 tech support
>b) its free for life
>c) they give really good service,
>and configured a amd 2000 to the specs of the g5 :
>
>AthlonXP,2000PR Palomino, 1.67Ghz
>Asus,A7N8X-Deluxe, DDR400, sound, LAN, 8x AGP,1394, SATA
>DDR333,256Mb DDR 333Mhz PC-2700
>Seagate, 80.0Gb Serial ATA, 7200rpm (8Mb cache)
>Pioneer,DVR-105 DVD-RW IDE OEM
>Intel,56k Data/Fax/Voice, PCI
>Intel,Gigabit Ethernet Adapter PCI
>Chaintech,8x GeForce FX 5200 128Mb DDR w/TV, DVI
>Codegen,6061 Aluminum Mid-ATX case 350W P/S Screwless
>Total: $ 789.00 (with 1 year warranty. it is a tested and burned in
>computer, not parts.)
>
>Almost 1/3rd the price yet it was faster than the g5. Only downside:
>doesnt run os x.

I saw the benchmarks in question also and I was extremely surprised at
the results.
It's amazing considering the 2000 + is older technology, at least
older than the G5 and that the PC with this specific configuration,
which is similar to the one I put together, except for the HD and the
DVD-RW, with a slower FSB, scored as high as it did compared to the
G5.
I wonder if Panther will change things, even though I doubt it,
considering that it won't be a 64 bit OS.
At the end of the day, unless you're rendering complex scenes in Maya
or doing some serious 2D/3D, will it make a difference to the end
user? And yes, OSX's GUI and general usability are superior to Windows
but Windows had caught up significantly and is presently quite usable,
IMO.

Nicolas

I truely have no idea what you're talking about. I have:

iMac

It works and it is fast. No techyblah for me.

Mark

no wrote:

> AthlonXP,2000PR Palomino, 1.67Ghz
> Asus,A7N8X-Deluxe, DDR400, sound, LAN, 8x AGP,1394, SATA
> DDR333,256Mb DDR 333Mhz PC-2700
> Seagate, 80.0Gb Serial ATA, 7200rpm (8Mb cache)
> Pioneer,DVR-105 DVD-RW IDE OEM
> Intel,56k Data/Fax/Voice, PCI
> Intel,Gigabit Ethernet Adapter PCI
> Chaintech,8x GeForce FX 5200 128Mb DDR w/TV, DVI
> Codegen,6061 Aluminum Mid-ATX case 350W P/S Screwless
> Total: $ 789.00 (with 1 year warranty. it is a tested and burned in
> computer, not parts.)
>
> Almost 1/3rd the price yet it was faster than the g5. Only downside:
> doesnt run os x.

--

eHUG coordinator
http://home.wanadoo.nl/mark.sch
http://www.ehug.info

Contribute to HyperCard[at]Paris
http://home.wanadoo.nl/mark.sch/contr.html

In article <bidl27$kml$1[at]news.apple.com>,
Peter Ammon <peter_ammon[at]rocketmail.com> wrote:

> no wrote:
>
> > I was at spymac, and one of the links was g4 g5 and amd benchmarks.
> > amd 2000 + got 127.4 seconds, while the 1.6 g5 got a 158.2 seconds,
> > lower is better.
> >
>
> [...]
>
> http://www.spymac.com/archive_main.php
>
> Can you find the link?
>

I wanted to ask the same question...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

no wrote:

> Only downside: doesnt run os x.

Aye, there's the rub.

I don't own a Mac because of its speed or lack thereof. I don't
own a Mac because of the amazing industrial design. I certainly don't own
a Mac because of the price.

I own a Mac because in 25 years of computing I have never found a
more stable, reliable, visually pleasing, application rich operating system
than OS X. It has ruined me for other OSes.

And seeing as this is cross-posted to an advocacy group, I'll say
something that is highly subjective. I have a friend who just got a new AMD
Athlon-based PC. It's very fast and quite inexpensive when compared to the
current Macs but when you figure in all the time he spends banging his head
on his desk because of general Windows' funkiness, the speed difference is
negated and no amount of money is worth the frustration he deals with.

OS X is the mother of all killer apps.

--
Bjorn Nitmo <bjorn[at]deepsky.com>
Yes, my name is Bjorn and no, I don't work at Ikea.

Alan Baker wrote:

>>http://www.spymac.com/archive_main.php
>>
>>Can you find the link?
>>
>
>
> I wanted to ask the same question...

Try this one:
http://www.theandyzone.com/Computer/shootout.html

In article <1061841063.33608.0[at]ersa.uk.clara.net>,
pointyhead <ftscum[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
>
> >>http://www.spymac.com/archive_main.php
> >>
> >>Can you find the link?
> >>
> >
> >
> > I wanted to ask the same question...
>
> Try this one:
> http://www.theandyzone.com/Computer/shootout.html
>

OK. The G5 does pretty well against the AMD 2000; beating it in some
tests and getting beaten in others.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In news:alangbaker-F7BF48.13004025082003[at]newsnews.telus.net,
Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net> typed:
> In article <1061841063.33608.0[at]ersa.uk.clara.net>,
> pointyhead <ftscum[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>>>> http://www.spymac.com/archive_main.php
>>>>
>>>> Can you find the link?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I wanted to ask the same question...
>>
>> Try this one:
>> http://www.theandyzone.com/Computer/shootout.html
>>
>
> OK. The G5 does pretty well against the AMD 2000; beating it in some
> tests and getting beaten in others.

the problem of course, is that the amd3200+, not to mention the opterons,
have been shipping for a while.

> I was at spymac, and one of the links was g4 g5 and amd benchmarks.
> amd 2000 + got 127.4 seconds, while the 1.6 g5 got a 158.2 seconds,
> lower is better.
>
> I am using a mac, I prefer them to PC's. But the macidiots were
> trolling hardcore when they said the g5 would spank the shit out of a pc.

1. Why was this crossposted?
2. What are you doing if not trolling? I notice on the Cinebench 2003
test, the dual G5 did better than everything except the dual Athlon 2.1
or Xeon 2.4. On a highly unoptimized benchmark.

The singles do look weak, but it's in MP that the G5 really shines.

P.S. I also have "free support for life" on my Mac, too.

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:00:37 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
wrote:

>In article <1061841063.33608.0[at]ersa.uk.clara.net>,
> pointyhead <ftscum[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>> >>http://www.spymac.com/archive_main.php
>> >>
>> >>Can you find the link?
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > I wanted to ask the same question...
>>
>> Try this one:
>> http://www.theandyzone.com/Computer/shootout.html
>>
>
>OK. The G5 does pretty well against the AMD 2000; beating it in some
>tests and getting beaten in others.

You're OK with an AMD budget processor that's got a replacement that's
marketed as being 50% faster (AMD has the XP3000+ available - not to
mention the XP3200+) walking all over the $2000 G5?

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 18:41:25 -0700, Seeker1 wrote
(in message <seeker1-37FF19.21412525082003[at]news.comcast.giganews.com>):

> P.S. I also have "free support for life" on my Mac, too.

Where do you get this?

Dave (a Mac user for life)

In article <lsilkvg0qvv6dh4ofga41c13d4komoc50o[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:00:37 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <1061841063.33608.0[at]ersa.uk.clara.net>,
> > pointyhead <ftscum[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>
> >> >>http://www.spymac.com/archive_main.php
> >> >>
> >> >>Can you find the link?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I wanted to ask the same question...
> >>
> >> Try this one:
> >> http://www.theandyzone.com/Computer/shootout.html
> >>
> >
> >OK. The G5 does pretty well against the AMD 2000; beating it in some
> >tests and getting beaten in others.
>
> You're OK with an AMD budget processor that's got a replacement that's
> marketed as being 50% faster (AMD has the XP3000+ available - not to
> mention the XP3200+) walking all over the $2000 G5?

It doesn't walk all over the G5.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article <no-0BA283.09423125082003[at]news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
no <no[at]no.com> wrote:

> Almost 1/3rd the price yet it was faster than the g5. Only downside:
> doesnt run os x.

And that's why that machine is totally useless to me. (btw: why the
crossposts?)

--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund

no <no[at]no.com> wrote:

> I went to the place I buy my pc's from, because
> a) they have 1 800 tech support
> b) its free for life
> c) they give really good service,
> and configured a amd 2000 to the specs of the g5 :

That's nice. Yawn. Why did you think I gave a flying fuck?

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 04:22:10 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
wrote:

>In article <lsilkvg0qvv6dh4ofga41c13d4komoc50o[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:00:37 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <1061841063.33608.0[at]ersa.uk.clara.net>,
>> > pointyhead <ftscum[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Alan Baker wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>http://www.spymac.com/archive_main.php
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Can you find the link?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I wanted to ask the same question...
>> >>
>> >> Try this one:
>> >> http://www.theandyzone.com/Computer/shootout.html
>> >>
>> >
>> >OK. The G5 does pretty well against the AMD 2000; beating it in some
>> >tests and getting beaten in others.
>>
>> You're OK with an AMD budget processor that's got a replacement that's
>> marketed as being 50% faster (AMD has the XP3000+ available - not to
>> mention the XP3200+) walking all over the $2000 G5?
>
>It doesn't walk all over the G5.

It's a $50 processor, and for most intents and purposes it beats the
G5 at most things - call it what you will. Buy a $150 AMD CPU and it
*really* beats the G5. That's embarrassing, isn't it? This "hot" new
CPU that's beaten by yesteryear's AMD chips?