Linked by Nicholas Blachford on Wed 9th Jul 2003 16:43 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y This article started life when I was asked to write a comparison of x86 and PowerPC CPUs for work. We produce PowerPC based systems and are often asked why we use PowerPC CPUs instead of x86 so a comparison is rather useful. While I have had an interest in CPUs for quite some time but I have never explored this issue in any detail so writing the document proved an interesting exercise. I thought my conclusions would be of interest to OSNews readers so I've done more research and written this new, rather more detailed article. This article is concerned with the technical differences between the families not the market differences.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Give me a break...
by Athemeus on Thu 10th Jul 2003 17:15 UTC

"D) If Apple produces a benchmark it automatically assumed to be fake - which I guess is only to be expected given their record.
However If Intel produced a benchmark it's "gosh look how fast they are". They should both be treated for what they are: benchmarks produced by a manufacturer of a product - no matter their intention - are marketing. "

Exactly why you should talk about benchmarks from real-world applications instead of SPEC. But then again, Adobe is inching away from PPC, and a number of benchmarkers have found x86 to be giving higher numbers in applications, including traditionally Mac ones. But don't take my word for it.

The sad thing is, I was eagerly looking at the tech paper for the G5, and Apple did a music software comparison, using Logic on the Mac and Cubase on the PC. Logic 5.1 works on the PC; in fact I use it on this very PC all the time. Why wouldn't they compare results using the *same* software, since comparing results from two different programs is useless? My only conclusion can be that it didn't give the results they wanted.