OSNews

I want a duel core iMac

Isn't that a little bit overkill for a monitor with a built in computer?

[/sarcasm]

and i'd much prefer people preview their posts to check their tags, but we can't all have what we prefer can we ?:-)

I bet a top of the line quad Opteron would be pretty close. Probably more expensive though.

one don't need quad AMD, Dual Opteron destroyed latest MAC.
and here why BOXX is more expensive:
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=3295...

in most benchmarks dual Opteron is 60-100% faster than Power Mac G5 dual 2.75
Opteron aslo is faster in Night Flight that favors some options in MAC

I'm thinking a quad mac would still beat out a dual opteron in most highly threaded tests. But you're right, it probably would be close. I missed out on how slow that Xeon was (only 2.8GHz)

OMG it totally destroyed the MAC!!! ON PC OPTIMIZED APPLICATIONS!!


BUT, BUTT NIGHT FLIGHT FAVORS MAC!


The only problem dumbass is that Mac users don't use After Affects for content creation. It's a joke like Adobe. That sh*t isn't even close to being optimized on the Apple platform as it is for WinTel. So all these test prove jack spit. Lets test this suck out with Final Cut Pro Motion.....OOOooppsss

Did you even read the article before posting? The BOXX is a dual Opteron 275. The Opteron 275 is a fricking dual-core CPU. You've basically posted a benchmark showing that a quad core Opteron is 60-100% faster than a dual CPU G5. Well *duh*! Indeed, the benchmarks suggest that a quad G5 would hang quite well with the quad Opteron, given apps that demonstrated 60%+ SMP scaling with twice the cores!

You're an idiot. You're looking at a benchmark comparing dual dual-core Opterons to plain dual G5 Macs. How about comparing to dual dual-core G5? Maybe then it would be a fair comparison. As it is, it's comparing apples and oranges.

first post about QuadMacMan provided link
have you read it?
I bet you havent. So read it. this is the excerpt from third page:
"Excuse me, but the new Mac is not "pricey". I did some research and this deserves a look:

I did some workstation pricing comparisons. For a "comparable" system to the Mac Quad with FX 4500 I got these approximate prices all configured with Dual AMD 280 (2.4Ghz, Dual Core) cpus, minimum system Ram (400Mhz DDR2 SDRAM), a 250GB SATA-150 system drive, a PC-style "Superdrive", no wireless, no optical audio.

HP xW 9300 w/2GB ECC DDR-400 Ram $9249

BOXX 7400 w/1GB ECC DDR-400 Ram $6869

Alienware 7550a w/1GB ECC DDR-400 Ram $6420

Apple Quad w/1GB non-ECC DDR2-533 $5148 including shipping"

So "idiot" was some MAC user comparing machines and prices.

I only explained (providing link to the benchmark page)
That BOXX7400 is more expensive, but weay faster (including test Apple was using to show how dual core beats crap out single 3.6 intel (and this was obviously o.k.)

That BOXX7400 is more expensive, but weay faster

That benchmark wasn't comparing the BOXX7400 to a Mac Quad. It was comparing it to a dual-processor Mac.

And according to this:
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/10/25/dualcorebenchmarks/index.ph...
there is not much difference between dual-core and dual-procesor. Or Is it?
They are actually happy that dua-core perform as well as dual-processor.
Dual-core or dual-processor, G5 is still slower than Boxx7400

By the way MacWorld is using adobe products for testing too.

Please tell me where a 2.5GHz dual core is mentioned in the test. The don't exist - so read carefully before you write.