Power G5, power no more. - Nubblies.net Forums

buckeye · 11-10-2003, 04:08 AM

As you can cleary see here the so called "World's Fastest Proccessor" is no longer king. AMD's 64bit FX-51 clearly beats the Dual G5 in everything except the Photoshop test, and puts a solo G5 to shame. Dont expect Apple to beat out AMD anytime soon as the Fx-53 is slated for release early next year.

[ November 10, 2003, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: buckeye ]

Ugly Bastard · 11-10-2003, 06:48 AM

How does that make you feel, Titan, victim?

Suddenly your gay little computer company isn't so pimp, huh?

-Ugly Bastard

Titan · 11-10-2003, 02:11 PM

Just because it's not the fastest?
Hardly.

Why are they so concerned about having the fastest computers? Because they know that they can't compete with ingenius programs like iTunes, so they have to compensate in other areas.

Frankly Scarlet, I don't give a fuck. My computer is perfectly fast enough for me.

Niger Angelus · 11-10-2003, 07:02 PM

[img]graemlins/apepissright.gif[/img] apple [img]graemlins/apepissleft.gif[/img]
That is all I have to say.

victim · 11-10-2003, 09:51 PM

Imagine that, a slightly newer computer is slightly faster. And your point is what?

Apple is not out of the race by any means, and the high end machines have very competitive prices with PCs of similar speed. When you add in the style and stability of the Macintosh platform, it's still a pretty good option (and the best for me). Recently, Virginia Tech clustered 1100 G5 machines together, and currently, that cluster is the 3rd most powerful supercomputer on earth. Not only that, they were able to accomplish this feat at a fraction of the cost of the other supercomputers out there. Don't rule Apple out. Updates are expected in the PowerMac line early next year, which could very easily put Apple back on top of the speed game.

Ugly Bastard · 11-10-2003, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by victim:
Recently, Virginia Tech clustered 1100 G5 machines together, and currently, that cluster is the 3rd most powerful supercomputer on earth.

Losing to only two PC supercomputers.

-Ugly Bastard

victim · 11-10-2003, 11:49 PM

Not exactly. Neither of the two faster machines are x86 based systems (i.e. they don't have an Intel or AMD chipset)... #1 cost $350 million, and #2 cost more than $40 million, and this new Mac cluster (Big Mac), cost less than $5.5 million and might prove to be faster than the #2 machine. (The #4 machine is a $35 million dollar cluster of Xeon processors that can't even hold a match to the Mac supercomputer).

buckeye · 11-11-2003, 02:14 AM

Slightly faster??? Did you see the benchmarks? When a solo, yep thats right just one, FX-51 is beating a Dual G5 system in a Quake III benchmark by 41 FPS, that is an ass raping not a marginal victory.

As for the updates its expected for AMD and intel, intel will be answering the 64bit proccessor of AMD with one of their own, so the speculation on which will be faster should probably be saved for another time.

Alpha · 11-11-2003, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by buckeye:
Slightly faster??? Did you see the benchmarks? When a solo, yep thats right just one, FX-51 is beating a Dual G5 system in a Quake III benchmark by 41 FPS, that is an ass raping not a marginal victory.

BURN!... Well that is a burn... I think. Oh wait, that's right I have no clue what you're talking about.

buckeye · 11-11-2003, 05:35 PM

FPS= frames per second

on any standard benchmark test if the products being compared arent within 5-10 fps of eachother its considered a blowout.

sIREn · 11-11-2003, 07:10 PM

It's near

Saint DH · 11-11-2003, 11:42 PM

My foot is near to stomping a mud hole in your motherfucking face, bitch. I hate you already.

Ugly Bastard · 11-12-2003, 02:20 AM

Hey victim, I heard that the G5 isn't the best computer in the world anymore, what happened?

-Ugly Bastard

Titan · 11-12-2003, 02:23 PM

Hey Ugly, I heard that the reason you're such an ugly bastard is that your mom had generous amounts of narcotics in her system when she had you, and then your father left. What's up with that?

Ugly Bastard · 11-13-2003, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Titan:
Hey Ugly, I heard that the reason you're such an ugly bastard is that your mom had generous amounts of narcotics in her system when she had you, and then your father left. What's up with that?

Hey Titan, what you said isn't true, what I said is true. How does that make you feel?

Moreover, how does it make you feel that the computer you are replying to me on right now, sucks a piece of abortion?

-Ugly Bastard

Tig 'ol Bitties · 11-14-2003, 01:14 PM

Like someone mentioned earlier in this thread.
The PC may have a faster processor but they will never have the stability and quality that you get when you purchase a Macintosh computer.

Another thing, Lets run that test again and use ALL 8Gb of ram that the G5 is capable of, we will see who wins.

Then you can go ahead and cry when your AMD gets raped like never before.

EDIT: This also reminds me of something else. The G5 and Mac computers in general require alot of ram, so how can you run a test like this and expect them to win?

I find this test a huge defeat because Mac computers perform poorly w/out a significant amount of ram, they came this close with only 128mb of ram.

So buckeye, you go on with your poor attempt in trying to defeat Apple computers.. We will be here sitting and enjoying our Macs every minute you try

Lets make a deal, If the buckeye's lose this weekend. You shut your mouth and never post with your poor attempts to outrun apple computers.

[ November 14, 2003, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Tig 'ol Bitties ]

Paper Tiger · 11-14-2003, 01:21 PM

So there is one processor out there that can beat a Apple, that doesn't mean that they're better computers though, just that they have a faster processor in them. Apples just cannot be defeated when it comes to the "total package".

buckeye · 11-14-2003, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tig 'ol Bitties:

EDIT: This also reminds me of something else. The G5 and Mac computers in general require alot of ram, so how can you run a test like this and expect them to win?

You could just be the biggest fucking idiot alive, of course a computer is going to have a better score if it has 8 gigs of ram whoooopee compared to one that has 128. However if you've noticed the link the benchmarks are for the processors, PROCESSORS, not ram. If you put 8 gigs of ram on a PC and 8 gigs of ram on a G5 guess which one will come out on top?? The PC, because its processor is better! The idea of the test is to standardize all the components beside the processor so that the benchmarks are a accurate reflection of the processing power.

If you'd like to argue which computer is overall better than fine ill argue that with you, however trying to say that my post was implying this takes it out of content, i was comparing processors, and not overall computers. Ohhh and just a sidenote OSU will be kicking some boiler ass on saturday. Gameday will be there, and so will i, fuck yeah.

buckeye · 11-14-2003, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paper Tiger:
Apples just cannot be defeated when it comes to the "total package".

care to elaborate?

11-10-2003, 02:11 PM	#3 (permalink)
Titan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 3,698 Internets: 10	Just because it's not the fastest? Hardly. Why are they so concerned about having the fastest computers? Because they know that they can't compete with ingenius programs like iTunes, so they have to compensate in other areas. Frankly Scarlet, I don't give a fuck. My computer is perfectly fast enough for me.
	I do what the fuck I want.

11-10-2003, 07:02 PM	#4 (permalink)
Niger Angelus We still believe. Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Indiana Posts: 4,697 Internets: 216	[img]graemlins/apepissright.gif[/img] apple [img]graemlins/apepissleft.gif[/img] That is all I have to say.
	I enjoy knives and fire.

11-10-2003, 09:51 PM	#5 (permalink)
victim Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 985 Internets: 10	Imagine that, a slightly newer computer is slightly faster. And your point is what? Apple is not out of the race by any means, and the high end machines have very competitive prices with PCs of similar speed. When you add in the style and stability of the Macintosh platform, it's still a pretty good option (and the best for me). Recently, Virginia Tech clustered 1100 G5 machines together, and currently, that cluster is the 3rd most powerful supercomputer on earth. Not only that, they were able to accomplish this feat at a fraction of the cost of the other supercomputers out there. Don't rule Apple out. Updates are expected in the PowerMac line early next year, which could very easily put Apple back on top of the speed game.
	get off my internet!!!

11-10-2003, 11:49 PM	#7 (permalink)
victim Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 985 Internets: 10	Not exactly. Neither of the two faster machines are x86 based systems (i.e. they don't have an Intel or AMD chipset)... #1 cost $350 million, and #2 cost more than $40 million, and this new Mac cluster (Big Mac), cost less than $5.5 million and might prove to be faster than the #2 machine. (The #4 machine is a $35 million dollar cluster of Xeon processors that can't even hold a match to the Mac supercomputer).
	get off my internet!!!

11-11-2003, 07:10 PM	#11 (permalink)
sIREn Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 11 Internets: 10	It's near
	He's Coming!

11-10-2003, 04:08 AM	#1 (permalink)
buckeye Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 1,100 Internets: 10	As you can cleary see here the so called "World's Fastest Proccessor" is no longer king. AMD's 64bit FX-51 clearly beats the Dual G5 in everything except the Photoshop test, and puts a solo G5 to shame. Dont expect Apple to beat out AMD anytime soon as the Fx-53 is slated for release early next year. [ November 10, 2003, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: buckeye ]

11-10-2003, 06:48 AM	#2 (permalink)
Ugly Bastard Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 13,643 Internets: 247330	How does that make you feel, Titan, victim? Suddenly your gay little computer company isn't so pimp, huh? -Ugly Bastard

11-11-2003, 02:14 AM	#8 (permalink)
buckeye Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 1,100 Internets: 10	Slightly faster??? Did you see the benchmarks? When a solo, yep thats right just one, FX-51 is beating a Dual G5 system in a Quake III benchmark by 41 FPS, that is an ass raping not a marginal victory. As for the updates its expected for AMD and intel, intel will be answering the 64bit proccessor of AMD with one of their own, so the speculation on which will be faster should probably be saved for another time.

11-11-2003, 05:35 PM	#10 (permalink)
buckeye Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 1,100 Internets: 10	FPS= frames per second on any standard benchmark test if the products being compared arent within 5-10 fps of eachother its considered a blowout.

11-11-2003, 11:42 PM	#12 (permalink)
Saint DH Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 6,147 Internets: 284753	My foot is near to stomping a mud hole in your motherfucking face, bitch. I hate you already.

11-12-2003, 02:20 AM	#13 (permalink)
Ugly Bastard Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 13,643 Internets: 247330	Hey victim, I heard that the G5 isn't the best computer in the world anymore, what happened? -Ugly Bastard

11-12-2003, 02:23 PM	#14 (permalink)
Titan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 3,698 Internets: 10	Hey Ugly, I heard that the reason you're such an ugly bastard is that your mom had generous amounts of narcotics in her system when she had you, and then your father left. What's up with that?
	I do what the fuck I want.

11-14-2003, 01:14 PM	#16 (permalink)
Tig 'ol Bitties Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Right Thurr Posts: 96 Internets: 10	Like someone mentioned earlier in this thread. The PC may have a faster processor but they will never have the stability and quality that you get when you purchase a Macintosh computer. Another thing, Lets run that test again and use ALL 8Gb of ram that the G5 is capable of, we will see who wins. Then you can go ahead and cry when your AMD gets raped like never before. EDIT: This also reminds me of something else. The G5 and Mac computers in general require alot of ram, so how can you run a test like this and expect them to win? I find this test a huge defeat because Mac computers perform poorly w/out a significant amount of ram, they came this close with only 128mb of ram. So buckeye, you go on with your poor attempt in trying to defeat Apple computers.. We will be here sitting and enjoying our Macs every minute you try Lets make a deal, If the buckeye's lose this weekend. You shut your mouth and never post with your poor attempts to outrun apple computers. [ November 14, 2003, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Tig 'ol Bitties ]

11-14-2003, 01:21 PM	#17 (permalink)
Paper Tiger Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 11 Internets: 10	So there is one processor out there that can beat a Apple, that doesn't mean that they're better computers though, just that they have a faster processor in them. Apples just cannot be defeated when it comes to the "total package".