Stop plagarizing!

http://arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/ppc970/ppc970-1.html

im a pc tinker i upgrade my system 4 times ayear .a 1000dollar apple can beat any pc .its not just cpu but os cpu combo that makes for good computing.open up 6 windows then a streaming video.shake the video window around move the slider on the window back and forth it doesnt skip a beat on a mac.it will probably be a few more years that a xp pc can come close to doing this.my 2800 athlon gforce4 xp cant.im pissed off with xp, my hard drive seams to be filling up with security patches.the registry in xp seams to be xps flaw,its like one bathroom for 200 guests.pcs r full of open ports macs dont have the virus problems that pcs do.i will follow my sons lead and switch to a mac.yer testing of cpus is good but put a mac with its curent os next to a pc with xp mac wins hands down.now what am i going to do with my stock of pc parts?my conclustion.....
bill gates is a big flimflme man that should have been exiled years agoe.pcs have realy good cpus that are handycaped severly by the os.xp is like 20 layers of cloths on a cpu,it can barely move.

You missed something extremely important.

Intel SPEC numbers are compiled using software that is not available to the general public. Why is this? With the special libraries it uses - it CAN NOT GIVE OPERATIONAL OUTPUT. It is designed FOR SPEC and ONLY SPEC.

Dont be lazy. Run the benchmarks yourself. SPEC is already a marketing tool and has been for some time.

GCC was used because it is a REAL compiler and obviously a BIT more reflective of real-world performance.

Quote: "They used to say that a real processor didn’t need to transform instructions into a “digestible” form, while “crippled” x86 processors had to translate their external instruction set into the “right” RISC-like internal set. I wonder what they are going to say now. :)"

They will say that the decoder for the x86 is still a monster compared to the RISC version and that RISC instructions decode to much fewer micro-ops on average than IA standard instructions.

It is regrettable that some PC users continue to be so paranoid that an alternative to the generic pc box may actually be better at some tasks. An entrepeneurial, individual spirit built this wonderful Nation of America, not marching morons spouting Big Brother is best slogans. I detected, (and appreciated) the reluctant admiration of the author in some comments referring to the decision of the 970 and Apple engineers to try a different way, rather than bow to conformity. This whole argument reminds me of the cold war and space race. In Soviet Russia you had no choice but to conform. Thank God it hasn't come to that yet in America.

THE PPC G5 IS THE BEST SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE BY FAR, ALSO THE 64-BIT ARCHITECTURE BLOWS THE IBM POWER-5 i SERIES SERVERS AWAY TO DUST.

What about the speeding up of the fans in the G5 huh, why does no one mention it, i know the chip is high-powered but come on!

I think for an article that attempts to show the fraud that Apple uses in marketing the new G5 processor, you should not start off saying "So, this is one of the first times in our history that we, at X-Bit Labs, put aside the glorious PC to take a look at the Mac." By saying "the glorious PC" you clearly prove that you are biased towards the the PC and x86 architecture. I found a tone of bias to be apparent throughout the article. You are just as biased towards the PC and Apple is towards the Mac. It was a very interesting article but I wish I could believe you looked into every source in order to look into the G5 processor, but I feel as that you were out to disprove the G5 processor from the beginning. You used only the SPEC numbers in your argument which relies on the submissions of the producing companies, so all of the numbers will be biased. I would like to see some benchmark results from a an independent outside source in order to truely look at processors you spoke of.

I liked the article, I read it when it came out and year ago and recently read ArsTechnica's article adn was working on a report for shool so I came back and read it again. This time I could understand the article but I do have a few points:
A) the English is a bit poor at points
B) the pro-x86 bias didn't help the last two pages
C) I think that because there was little evidence about performance (Apple can't be trusted but lets face it SPEC isn't a great 'real world' benchmark - the EE is not 20% faster than the normal Pentium 4) you should have limited you inference about performance to a minimum.

In conclusion, I liked the artilce. I liked the old Xbit labs better by the way and would like to thank the author, because a year ago, when I was first getting interested in computers this article was fascinating and it brings back a lot of great memories going through it again - this time with an understanding. Thanks!

You seem to know a lot of details on processors, but have you ever worked with a Mac?

we can large scale supply ddr/flash/pen-ten cpu(450usd)/digitial camera,race-car(850000usd)
corp near hk(china-13961703913)