Forums | MacLife

If you're talking MS, don't forget C#.

frankly wrote:

mrreet2001 wrote:

Pariah wrote:

A $1000 quad core Core2 from Dell is delivers 80% of the speed of a $3000 Mac Pro.

thats only 8 hours more work you could get done in a week ... no biggie

Not to mention that the "80% of the speed" is likely pulled out of the air as an estimate.

80% is my conclusion from looking at benchmarks of various systems. MacPros are awesome at sustained, many-threaded tasks like rendering video and 3D but offer less of an advantage with many other tasks.
This is not some off the wall assertion and if you followed the literature you would know that Mr. Teacher man..

frankly wrote:

mrreet2001 wrote:

Pariah wrote:

A $1000 quad core Core2 from Dell is delivers 80% of the speed of a $3000 Mac Pro.

thats only 8 hours more work you could get done in a week ... no biggie

Not to mention that the "80% of the speed" is likely pulled out of the air as an estimate.

Having oogled a lot of benchmarks before getting my C2Q; I can support such kind of numbers.
In Geekbench and cinebench for instance, my 400€ rig is close to a Mac Pro Quad. If I overclock it, it might be superior.
I'll post the numbers later today.

edit: yes frankly, one quad versus one quad.
edit2: Here are the geekbench marks. 2,4Ghz for my C2Q; 2,8Ghz for the Xeon.

My €400 "Mac", C2Q 2,4Ghz; 5085 points: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/105535
Apple's $2450 Mac Pro, Xeon 2,8Ghz; 5777 points: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/104332

Last edited by pirloui (2009-01-29 12:22 pm)

ScifiterX wrote:

I would rather prefer to. But I hope you do get my point.

I was actually going to bring that up.  Microsoft has been pushing .NET/C# for the past several years.  The reason C/C++ isn't going anywhere any time soon has nothing to do with Microsoft.  Rather, for many important applications, it's simply the best tool for the job.

Last edited by Mr. T (2009-01-28 10:34 am)

frankly wrote:

Pariah wrote:

This is not some off the wall assertion and if you followed the literature you would know that Mr. Teacher man..

Wow, how long did it take you being in the same thread as me for the ad hominem attacks to start? I feel sorry for you that you can't have a conversation with another human being without attacking them personally. It is sad.

If that's your idea of a heinous ad-hom you have a problem. But I guess it is easier to whine about posting style than argue the issue.

frankly wrote:

Pariah wrote:

frankly wrote:

Wow, how long did it take you being in the same thread as me for the ad hominem attacks to start? I feel sorry for you that you can't have a conversation with another human being without attacking them personally. It is sad.

If that's your idea of a heinous ad-hom you have a problem. But I guess it is easier to whine about posting style than argue the issue.

When you start making posts like that I lose any interest I had in discussing the issue with you. If you can't see that then I'm afraid you need to detach yourself from the situation and take a fresh look at your posts. Also, I said it was an ad hominem attack. I did not use the word heinous. It wasn't even close to as ugly as some things you've said in the past but that isn't the point. The point is that for whatever reason when the discussion gets to a certain point you try to distract from it by attacking me instead of my points. That is the definition of an ad hominem attack. Period.

If a person treated me that way in public I would consider it disrespectful and I would find no need to continue the discussion. Why do you think it is different because we are in a forum?

I have no need to attack you personally because quite frankly I don't know you. Perhaps your forum persona is all an act and in real life you wouldn't say the things you do. So, I have decided that when you reduce your posts to personal attacks I will simply discontinue my discussion of the topic at hand with you.

I hope that you understand and I hope that you have a great day.

Pot, kettle, black.
You are far too aggressive a poster to play the hurt feelings game.
My comment was perfectly apt. You have this arch way of presenting yourself as some sort of expert, but then when something so well known, like the close performance of the C2Q and the Xeon, comes up you act like it's some off the wall comment. Maybe if you stopped acting like you were ever so much more knowledgeable all of the time you would be corrected with greater mercy.

Right-o... What recession? How about this one?

Recession hitting Apple retail stores hard    Wednesday, January 28th

The global recession is having a serious impact on Apple's retail performance, says Needham & Co.'s Charlie Wolf. The researcher claims that while Apple Stores have for years done better than most retail chains, visitors per store fell 1.8 percent year-over-year in December, while same-store revenues dropped 17.4 percent. Mac shipments are said to have slid an average of 17.5 percent, while combined non-Mac revenues fell 10 percent.

Sales are unlikely to resume normal levels, says Wolf, until the worst of the recession is over. Apple Stores are believed to be instrumental in luring Windows users to the Mac however, due to a combination of free after-sales services and paid teaching sessions; Wolf observes that nearly half of the 515,000 Macs sold in stores during the December quarter were bought by people from a Windows background, in turning representing nearly 25 percent of all converts from Windows during the period.

The decline of same-store figures is also believed to be affected as much by Apple's rapid expansion during 2008, which lessened the average take for each location.

pirloui wrote:

I thought I wouldn't make a new post with the numbers, but since the thread is taking dust anyway:
Per Ghz, the C2Q and the Xeon are very close.
If somebody want any particular bench of my machine just tell.

pirloui wrote:

frankly wrote:

Not to mention that the "80% of the speed" is likely pulled out of the air as an estimate.

Having oogled a lot of benchmarks before getting my C2Q; I can support such kind of numbers.
In Geekbench and cinebench for instance, my 400€ rig is close to a Mac Pro Quad. If I overclock it, it might be superior.
I'll post the numbers later today.

edit: yes frankly, one quad versus one quad.
edit2: Here are the geekbench marks.

My €400 "Mac", C2Q 2,4Ghz; 5085 points: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/105535
Apple's $2450 Mac Pro, Xeon 2,8Ghz; 5777 points: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/104332

Thanks for that.
I gotta say I am past sick and tired of the blind Apple fans who won't admit that Xeons are a case of diminishing returns.
A workstation like a MacPro certainly has it's applications and for the applications that require a cost is no object approach the Pro is very competitive in it's class.
But for most applications Xeons are a case where the small increase in speed is simply not justified by the very large increase in price.
It just keeps coming back to the simple, undisputable fact that that the desktop oriented Core2 series, dual and quad, is the sweet spot in Intel's line. Where genuinely excellent performance can be had at very reasonable prices.
When you can equal or almost equal the performance of a Mac for 1/3 the cost it makes a Mac desktop a hard sell for anyone with any real technical knowledge.

That Cinebench result actually works out proportionally equivalent
2.4|2.8 (*1000) = 2400|2800 (/400) = 6|7 (*1500) = 9000|10500

Power wise the only advantages the Xeon has are clock speed and MP support.

Of course Pariah is talking cost and there he might have a point (does some research to eliminate factors like brand and look at cost/MHz of the processor itself).

Last edited by ScifiterX (2009-01-31 1:02 pm)

The Xeon Apple uses is actually the E5462.  The cheapest I could find that chip for is $832, from a store I've never heard of (serversdirect).  And of course, it's not just the CPU that is ridiculously overpriced (for most uses), but the RAM and chipset as well.  4 Gigs of FB-DDR2 800 is $172 at Newegg, versus $35 for even faster 1066MHz DDR-2.  There's even less bang-for-the-buck in the motherboard, but since it's a custom part, a direct comparison is not possible

Last edited by Mr. T (2009-01-31 2:04 pm)

I'd be pretty happy with Apple's iMac lineup (though it's due for an update) if they just removed the monitors, added some upgrade slots and took $200 off the price.