BareFeats updated its Mac Pro test page with results from the 3.0Ghz version. Should you make the leap to the Mac Pro? “Should you buy a new Mac Pro or a closeout or refurbished Quad-Core G5? If cost is a factor and you use non-UB pro apps, then we think the Quad-Core G5 is still a valid choice. If you are running Universal Binary apps, can handle the cost of the new Mac Pro plus the expensive memory, and can tolerate the hidden gotchas of ‘version 1’ of the Intel towers, then you would benefit by making the leap to the Mac Pro. The main frustration in the short term will be the 5 week wait for the optional Radeon X1900 XT or the scarcity of correct memory from upgrade sources.”
Quad Xeon 3.0GHz Mac Pro vs. Quad G5 2.5GHz Power Mac
About The Author
Follow me on Twitter @thomholwerda
2006-08-18 3:46 pmhalfmanhalfamazing
I don’t see the problem.
It looks to me like Thom simply cut and paste the last two paragraphs; the summary on which one you should/n’t consider.
2006-08-18 4:24 pmGoverna
Why not cuting and pasting some benchmarking results? Or the analysis section? Or some sentences like “We are impressed with the Mac Pro’s performance.” ? Or even “As you can see from the four UB tests we ran in this session(…)the Mac Pro 3.0GHz was as much as 85% faster” ?
By reading Thom’s cut and paste section we get the feeling that the Mac Pro is not worth the price or the performance… he only posted the cons on buying a Mac Pro. It doesn’t tell me how the Mac Pro behaved, it doesn’t tell me why I should buy a Mac Pro, it only tells us why we shoulnd’t buy one! What a nice cut and paste… very convenient.
Eugenia publishes OS News, period. Thom uses ‘mind games’, carefully crafting news as he sees fit, specially Apple related news. You don’t need to be a Mac user to see that…
Is there a way for a user to filter the news so I could only be able to read Eugenia’s posts? That would be really nice! 🙂
Edited 2006-08-18 16:34
2006-08-18 8:33 pmJody
There is nothing wrong with jumping right to the conclusion since that is all most people reading sites like OSnews are after anyway.
However, those benchmarks are unfairly in favor of PowerPC because none of those applications have been ported to universal binary and they must be “emulated” on the Intel platform using Rosetta.
The fact that Intel holds any lead at all in this benchmark speaks volumes about how much faster it is.
Given the one sided setup of the benchmarks (intentional or not) maybe some kind of disclaimer in the summary of the article pointing out the test setup would be warranted.
2006-08-18 8:47 pmThom Holwerda
Oh get a grip. As I always do, I copied the concluding paragraphs. I always do that, and will continue to do so. It is the normal way of doing things.
I don’t cut and paste random sentences, as that creates an incoherent summary. Usually, article writers give their OWN good summaries either at the start or at the end, and I respect THEIR opinions.
My deepest regrets, my utter apologies that I dared to not put a fcuking halo around your pet company. You are working on my nerves here, sonny.
2006-08-18 8:52 pmInnova
I dared to not put a fcuking halo around your pet company
As an editor you really should watch your language sir. I guess it simply shows the maturity level you have and that you are probably in over your head acting as an editor for a large tech. news site.
I wish I could mod you down for offensive language and personal attacks. This type of behaviour from an editor to a user of your site is disgusting.
2006-08-19 12:52 amGet a Life
Your selection was fine. I fail to see the problem. Don’t worry about it.
2006-08-19 1:51 amGoverna
Well Thomas I’m sorry but this isn’t your little soviet union. There are many people that disagree with my remarks but they do it politely.
As an editor that you are, I find your language to be highly offensive. Why can’t we mod you down for offensive language? I don’t mind the personal attacks, but you are going too far…
I do not wish to engage in your offensive language wars so I repeat/suggest… is there any way we can filter the author of the news? I’d rather read only Eugenia’s posts. I don’t like your John Dvorak way of posting news:
Haven’t you heard that ‘the customer is always right’? I’m not quitting on OS News just because of your attitude, thats for sure…
2006-08-20 12:55 amsbergman27
As an x86 Linux user, I don’t have strong feelings about things Apple. However, I do feel that I should comment that a little more decorum on the part of a member of the editorial staff would reflect better on OSNews as a site.
I come here when I get a bit weary of the Linux-centricity of the Linux news sites that I frequent. And I prize OSNews as a site where people take a broader view, and have more of an appreciation for different OSes than most.
Such abusiveness from an editor is an ugly blotch on an otherwise great site.
I hope that was tactful enough. But if not, I apologize in advance.
2006-08-18 9:03 pmjelway
I’m usually a big Thom critic – but there doesn’t seem to be any bias in the snippet. In fact, it sounds positive if anything.
Yeah I don’t know if this OS news was reported either,,,though I may of missed it, but in a study: Apple leads industry in customer satisfaction.
Apple at 83 with Dell at a 78 out of a 100 points. It’s derived from phone interviews with customers contacted by using digital-dial telephone samples — more than 70,000 consumers are identified and interviewed annually.
Keep moving on Apple! I do like the new Mac Pro’s!
According to the tests, Photoshop under Rosetta emulation (PPC -> X86) runs just 5% slower than the Quad G5 which is amazing, and After Effects, also under emulation, runs 8% *faster*. Wow.
Of course, native apps in the MacPro blow the Quad Power Mac away. Should I change my nick? 😀
Here is another page with more test results:
Amazing those PPC apps run so fast under Rosetta given the huge task it has to perform!
Get off the rag Thomas, take it easy big fella and take your tums ant-acids!
sorry, but the power mac are 2,5 and the mac pro are 3 GHZ.this meant 0,5 x 4= 2 GHZ more than powermac and even the powermac is a bit faster, or a bit less faster than mac pro.Well this probe that PowerPC are better than intels because even with 2 GHz of differentce the powerpc are in par with xeons
2006-08-19 4:16 pmGoverna
They also tested the 2.66 GHz Mac Pro. Try comparing the machines when running Universal Binaries and you’ll see the Mac Pro is a hugely better machine.
I already miss Eugenia… look how Thom highlights only the ‘bad’ stuff… here we go again!
Considering that the Quad Core Xeon Mac Pro was only a tiny bit slower in Photoshop (not a Universal Binary app!) than the Quad PowerMac G5, I think graphics professionals really have no reason to hold back on replacing their desktops.
With the new Mac Pros, not only will you not lose very much performance with non-Universal apps, any Universal Binary apps will gain a huge performance advantage, all for significantly less.
Also Apple Mac Pro is at least competitive and often cheaper than similarly configured Dell. And comparing to the AMD Opteron 2218s, the Xeon 5150s were 35% faster in Maya software renderer and 16% faster in mental ray than the Opteron 2218s. Intel’s chips also gave an 18% boost to Photoshop over AMD’s rival.
The Mac Pro is a real winner, no doubt about that.