True Katinka - the hard to read graph in the article did pit a single
P4 against a dual G5. It's interesting that the graph
<http://www.collegiatetimes.com/newsadmin/photo/1062563741.jpg > was
sourced from the "International Supercomputer Conference" if you look
at the credit - so someone thought it had some validity in a pretty
high-powered forum!)
Other graphs comparing a dual Xeon (the Xeon being the
multi-processor capable version of the Pentium 4) against the dual G5
are of course more useful.
However, I would argue that you *can* compare the G5's 64bit nature
against the P4's 32bit architecture because we are comparing the main
desktop CPU of both platforms. It's not Apple's fault that intel's
64-bit competitor - the Itanium (or itanic as many commentators are
calling it) is only geared towards servers and not desktops and will
only run 32bit software in slow software emulation mode. Or that a
64bit version of Windows is still not released or that wintel
software needs to be re-compiled to take advantage of 64bits etc.
What I think we are all waiting for is a bake-off between the G5 and
the 64bit AMD Opteron or the upcoming desktop version, the Athalon64.
That should get some sparks flying.
-Mart
At 3:20 PM +0800 4/9/03, Katinka Mills wrote:
We are shooting ourselves in the foot with these press releases. You can not
compare a 32 bit processor with a 64 bit processor, also the G5 is specified
as DUAL processor not UNI processor. Most PC users are pointing this out and
complaining that we are comparing apples with oranges.
What I would like to see is a comparison of a G5 cpu against a P4 or if the
G5 has only been bench marked in duals against a dual P4 set-up
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Hill mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Multimedia Consultant http://is.curtin.edu.au/eot/
Educational & Online Technologies, Information Services, Curtin University
Mobile: 0417-967-969 wk: (08)9266-3101 Fax: (08)9266-3826
