On the G5 spec controversy
When I was a yute, I had a friend who was a real gearhead. We both had late-model Ford Mustangs, and he spent most of his time trying to eke every last bit of horsepower from his. When he bought it, it had a four-banger with a four-speed manual tranny and weak, baldass tires. Within a few months or a year he'd junked the drivetrain and replaced it with a 5.0 liter HO V8 drivetrain he'd recovered from a wreck. He'd put on wide rims with fat tires and a stiff suspension, and new bucket seats.
He'd also turned it into the most uncomfortable, obnoxiously loud, painful-riding car I'd ever seen. Not only did it attract unwanted attention with its throaty roar, but going over speedbumps and potholes was akin to sitting on a landmine. You'd get shaken and jostled from your seat, violently enough to make your stomach lurch.
It taught me an important lesson about specs. They don't tell the whole story. That's sort of how I feel about this whole Power Mac G5 thing.
It was only a few seconds after Apple announced its Power Mac G5 that a controversy erupted over Apple's claim of having the world's fastest personal computer. Naysayers -- some just regular civilians, some industry experts and analysts, too -- claim that Apple has manipulated the numbers to make the G5 seem faster than it really is compared to Intel-based hardware.
I can understand why Apple felt the pressure to make the claim. Its Power Mac sales have been in the toilet for several quarters. People have complained about the anemic processor speeds of the G4 and the relative impotence of the machine next to Pentium-based computers, even for doing the creative pro stuff Apple is known for.
Apple is counting on its own formidable PR mechanism and the raw sexiness of the new kit to drive pro sales for at least the next six months -- in fact, it's going to have to, since these machines aren't going to ship until at least the end of August, and more likely early September, at least in any sort of quantity.
But all this is beside the point, as is the tempest-in-a-teacup regarding Apple's veracity of its "fastest personal computer" claim. The bottom line is this: On any level, the new G5 is shitloads faster than the G4s it replaces.
This is a Good Thing.
Comments
It's an interesting argument, too, because in my work on computers I can usually get what I need done on a 400 Mhz Mac about 85% of the time. Roughly 14% of the time I need something that's more like a 733 Mhz Mac. Then there's that 1% left where I really need that 1 Ghz Mac. As for 2 Ghz G5s? I don't really need them right now and here's a secret: Most people don't. Therefore, the argument of whether or not Apple fudged the numbers is like arguing that the local ice cream store put one, not two tons of peanuts on your kids-size sundae.
Posted by: Corey Tamas | June 24, 2003 02:04 PM
I kind of have to agree with both perspectives on this one. For the most part, my G4 733 Quicksilver takes care of every task I can throw at it and unless I've tossed in a chunk of software that really puts everything off (such as a Japanese to English utility recently), OS X takes what I throw at it and just comes back smiling.
The only thing I need the G5 for is the fact that the hardware minimum for games isn't decreasing and I have to wonder if a G5 can cleanly trek through the much that is the MOH single player AI code...
Chris
Posted by: Chris Barylick | June 24, 2003 06:02 PM
Mmmm, speed and sundaes. You can't ever go wrong with speed and a sundae. And by speed, I mean fast. Really.
Posted by: lyssa | June 24, 2003 06:54 PM
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/03/06/24/2154256.shtml?tid=126&tid=181
It answers a bit (for me anyway), and I think that the benchmark tests done by other companies (intel, *cough*) using a custom compiler are not actually fair, if the g5 used a custom compiler from apple (which they wouldn't, as they like this open standards thing) the performance would possibly be a bit better. So, I wonder how fast this thing can run, so, I wonder if this machine is enough to run SoF2 decently
Posted by: Robert "s.p.i.d.e.r." Lasater | June 24, 2003 10:25 PM
A bit repetitive, that's what 7 glasses of cofee (in 12 hours) do to you (well, me anyway).
Posted by: Robert "s.p.i.d.e.r." Lasater | June 24, 2003 10:27 PM