Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by Kevin, Jun 24, 2003.
Read through there. interesting.
a company purposly twisting benchmarks to show their product in the best light?! OH NOES!!!!11 OMG OMG! NEVAR!
Hahahahahahah mac retards
stuff like this will just fly over my head -_-
i'm in shock!
im not enough of a nerd to read all of that... I get it though..
I guess that does it... im REALY REALY REALY REALY not buying a G5 now
Macs are still in my books, but they are relatively more pricey and the Mac fanatics and employees overhype it way too much.
Now if they would only make the standard mouse as a 2 button with a scroll wheel.
You don't get it, do you? You don't.
yes actually i do. don't you realize that EVERY company lies about its products?
seems to me like he is comparing the tweaked apple SPEC results to the results obtained by intel and dell, like those are some kind of reference numbers. obviously the intel and dell numbers would have been tweaked as well to be favorable to their hardware. Until the G5 is released, and we have some independant tests, nobody knows how fast it really is.
But Mac fanatics makes it like Apple never does (see yesterday's long thread).
PhnkJnky , he's got the right idea...
See: Mac Fanatics
If you read the stuff it bitches about the fact that there is a 3.2ghz p4 that wasn't tested... you knwo why? becuase it was only launched the SAME DAY as the G5 boxes. Dude, who cares about faggoty ass mac owners? the G5 is > the G4 which is all it needed to be. The clock speed is up there, which is all it needed. That is all. It can't really be compared to a traditional 32bit cpu because of the fact that the software IS NOT THE SAME. The apple 64bit compilers are definitely not as mature as the 32bit intel ones and i'm sure the intel compilers have MUCH better optimization as the P4 architechture has been out for how mant years now compare to the oh, say 3 DAYS for the G5? Dude, get something better to worry about
I <3 the hate mail...
Read the fucking article. He's explaining the tweaks and deliberate unfair changes made in those benchmark tests.
Dude, I'm sayin the same thing.
Its still a powerful machine. Just an interesting read.
But mac owners also like macs, so that negates any opinion they have immediatly anyways.
I'm not changing anyone's opinions on Macs. I already said they're , but the overhyping by Mac fanatics is uber-.
He is obviously a master of economics and marketing to catch on to this conspiracy...
I banged some chick when I setup her MAC a few years ago.
Getting me laid is all I find them useful for.
i read the fucking article i said that the apple benchmarks were tweaked i also said that he then compared those numbers to benchmarks obtained by dell and intel tests, without investigating the specific tweaks/adjustments made to obtain THOSE numbers.
apple tweaks the test to show their hardware favorably. intel/dell do the same thing. Until both platforms are tested under identical conditions, none of these results mean anything
The chart he has says 'SOURCE: DELL and SOURCE: INTEL and SOURCE: AMD'
the gheyest part is apple claiming a GHz system bus. a system bus which only consists of the processors the system is still waiting 3 system bus clock cycles to talk to the ram since its only DDR333....