All three processors are cars equiped with NAS tanks (ala fast and the furious ). They are all lined up but before the race, the Mac goes and cuts the AMD and Pentium cars NAS lines so it wont work. Then they race and the Mac wins because he used his NAS to blow away the others. Now if you look at the tests done, the G5’s were set up to their absolute full potential and the AMD and Pentium were used at Minimum compacity. Not really Fair because they turned off the the hyper threading on the P4 chips.
Also they compared 2 proccessors (dual G5’s) to ONE Pentium 4 without hyper threading and turned off the multimedia instruction set - bull ****.
There is no denying that it’s fast - but not as great as they have said that’s for sure.
Actually I havent, but I heard it was a fun game. Not ment to be an epic adventrue by any means but a fun time while it lasts.
I think I may give it a rent - I like those kinds of games from time to time… me and girl can both take turns (she’s a game geek - she beat zelda already!, I’m not even close )
it isnt the wario game for the cube, its the one for the gameboy advance with over 200 5-10 second minigames… you play them in quick succession (great for short attention spans!)
The Article==Total Obfuscation,
He so cleverly prefaced with [paraphrased] I :love: Macs…for effect… :sure:
These were strict independant tests performed according to standards that cannot be tampered with and still legally claim the results. (read the criteria from the standards inst.)
Actually look at it this way:
“hyperthreading” is the unfair boost that was disabled ‘only’ on the dual processor tests because that is a dual simulator (NoX) where there was none onboard the G5 in either test … so it is not the G5 having nox and the others without but rather none of them at all during the dual tests and yet the pentium and xeon were kept with hyperthread on during the single tests … allowing a decided edge to them at that point (that’s what it’s for)
(read the linked article - “hyperthreading” does boost single processor results) … (why did he claim the opposite???)
A thorough Read of this guys sources/links [and not just take his word for it] is necessary.
The bottom line in my view is that with an average of 50% greater processor ghz capacity (3.x vs 2.0) allowed on the pentium and xeon in addition to a greater amnt of ram in each one, the G5 still held good marks and in deeper analysis is far faster per GHZ
A must to be considered that there is far more to accomplishing a task than raw HP… one also needs the effective transmission, (getting the power from the engine to the wheels so to speak) cache, bus and main memory architecture, etc.
True through-put is a net result not just a clock on one component.
toBoot - it’s Funny … this guy only quotes the most immature hate mail he could find !?! [or conjure up] and even argues whether or not a chettah is faster than a panther :sure: … he misread that other guys remarks alltogether - as if a naming convention is even relevent to the case anyway.
I read it through (the ‘other’ test data/links) … I’ll be happy w/a G5 :beam:
). They are all lined up but before the race, the Mac goes and cuts the AMD and Pentium cars NAS lines so it wont work. Then they race and the Mac wins because he used his NAS to blow away the others. Now if you look at the tests done, the G5’s were set up to their absolute full potential and the AMD and Pentium were used at Minimum compacity. Not really Fair because they turned off the the hyper threading on the P4 chips.
)
)