PDA

View Full Version : Apples re-invents the reality distortion field


Sazar
01-21-06, 03:18 PM
http://www.macworld.com/2006/01/features/imaclabtest1/index.php

If you talk to both Apple and Intel, they’ll tell you that the Intel Core Duo is a processor designed for laptops, providing a compromise between performance and good power-consumption and heat-generation characteristics. And so the Core Duo processor in these new iMacs (as well as the forthcoming MacBook Pro) is clearly not meant to be the be-all, end-all when it comes to raw computing power.

That’s one reason why Apple’s initial speed claims of doubled performance (with some tests running showing as much as a 3x speed boost) were so breathtaking, since they were coming from a chip meant to run small and cool. Unfortunately, our tests suggest that the remarkable results of Apple’s published tests aren’t reflected in most of the real-world applications we tested. Based on our initial tests, the new Core-Duo-based iMac seems to be 10 to 20 percent percent faster than its predecessor when it comes to native applications, with some select tasks showing improvement above and beyond that.



And other tests are slower.

I have no idea why Apple continues to claim such massive improvements, such as with the G-5 (when it launched and which were shown to be biased and bogus) and now the core-duo.

Yeah its fast and good but whats the point in published b.s. numbers?

Even when AMD and Intel post their respective results, there is some consensus that those numbers are somewhat accurate and easily reproducable.

One of these days, the merits of the products themselves will allow the company to sell them w/o the shroud of incredible (and generally incredulous) numbers.

OWA
01-21-06, 03:23 PM
That's typical for Apple. They've been doing that for years but I guess most of their user-base doesn't know enough to question it.

Son Goku
01-21-06, 03:29 PM
hehe, wrt many of Apple's fans, I still remember back in the day when I mentioned my displeasure with win95 problems. They'd all be like "get a Mac". Now mind you, we had Macs back when I was in high school, and Mac OS prior to X (aka Mac OS classic), I didn't care for that much.

But anyhow, I was like "why would I. I could get an Alpha, still run NT on it, and be able to run at least a portion of my win32 software on it under FX32!). That vs. replacing all of my software...

Though some were smart enough to realize that the PPC processor was no where's near being able to topple the Alpha processor at the time they were still being produced, some were not. Some swore up and down that the proc in Apple's machines was better then the proc Digital Equipment Corp was manufacturing :rofl DEC consistently held the performance crown against Sun Microsystems...

Too say that some Mac heads are "loyal" in their support of anything Apple, is an understatement in cases such as this...

ViN86
01-21-06, 04:30 PM
I have no idea why Apple continues to claim such massive improvements, such as with the G-5 (when it launched and which were shown to be biased and bogus) and now the core-duo.
because they can and no one questions them. its like that video that was posted a little while ago. jobs claimed that the test that showed 3x performance boost was the master of all CPU tests. yea w/e, he can get by tellin idiots that crap, but we true computer nerds know that hes full of it.

jolle
01-21-06, 08:50 PM
One of the guys disputing the G5 benches when that came around got really swamped in hatemail from apple fans.. calling him a PC fanboy and whatnot.. all his work and the stuff he written was all done on a Mac tho hehe..
They seem to have a tendancy to go nuts with their benchmarks..

oldsk00l
01-21-06, 10:02 PM
That's why I have every intent of running OSX86 on a REAL CPU when hacks are available...

six_storm
01-22-06, 01:25 AM
I played around with an Intel iMac today and it was pretty darn fast with normal apps like Safari and iLife 06. Now they didn't have any of the pro apps loaded on there yet but I'm sure it's not bad. I don't know what some of these people are complaining about.

shoman24v
01-22-06, 02:30 AM
That's why I have every intent of running OSX86 on a REAL CPU when hacks are available...
You can. You can build yourself a fully functional Mac for about 600 bucks.

msxyz
01-22-06, 02:51 AM
The sole reason why the convoluted X86 architecture still lives is the huge amount of money invested into it. A big portion of the die in today x86 microprocessors is devoted to tranlsating x86 microinstructions into something more functional.

But it's a real waste of space and transistors. Sometimes I wonder where we would be today if Intel and AMD invested their resources into a different direction, leaving the x86 architecture behind like Motorola did when they introduced the PowerPC.

Apple going Intel lost everything which made it different. Their latest OS is a close relative of BSD with a nice GUI. Their MAC are branded PC compatibles. Now give me one good reson to pour a lot of money into a MacIntel instead of assembling a cheap PC where I can install a wide range of freely available OSes (some of them as good or better than MacOS) ?

For me the epitome of the Macintosh computer architecture will always remain a PowerMAC running System 7 (which has been available on 68k machines since '91)

shoman24v
01-22-06, 02:59 AM
Apple should quit making computers and start thinking differently about the ipod.

haha

nutball
01-22-06, 03:43 AM
The sole reason why the convoluted X86 architecture still lives is the huge amount of money invested into it. A big portion of the die in today x86 microprocessors is devoted to tranlsating x86 microinstructions into something more functional.

But it's a real waste of space and transistors.

But none of this matters. ISA zealots have been banging on about this for years, it's irrelevant. Intel have tried to replace x86 and failed. The technical merits of the ISA are meaningless in the marketplace -- that's what compilers are for!

Sometimes I wonder where we would be today if Intel and AMD invested their resources into a different direction, leaving the x86 architecture behind like Motorola did when they introduced the PowerPC.

Probably the same place they are now.

Apple going Intel lost everything which made it different. Their latest OS is a close relative of BSD with a nice GUI. Their MAC are branded PC compatibles. Now give me one good reson to pour a lot of money into a MacIntel instead of assembling a cheap PC where I can install a wide range of freely available OSes (some of them as good or better than MacOS) ?

If you're banging on about ISAs and their relative merits, then you're not going to be the person who wants or needs a Mac. But then you never did.

You can't get a better OS than MacOS for a PC for the average user. OSX just works. Windows doesn't "just work". Linux doesn't "just work".

Really, honestly, no-one cares about ISAs, no-one cares about how beautiful the innards of their CPU is, nor how wonderfully clean and orthogonal the system infrastructure is. They want a computer that they plug in, and it works, it talks to the Internet and runs MS Office. That's it.