Professional Web Applications Themes

dual g5 2 gig DOESNT spank Dell - Mac Applications & Software

Strange, when one goes to [url]www.spec.org[/url] to get the officially obtained spec numbers, one sees that for SPECfp_rate_base2000 (the mac lost in the int test) the scores for the dell 650 ARE NOT LOWER than the dual g5 2 gig. As far as SPEC is concerned, the g5 IS NOT the fastest PC, even using Apple's definition...

  1. #1

    Default dual g5 2 gig DOESNT spank Dell

    Strange, when one goes to [url]www.spec.org[/url] to get the officially obtained
    spec numbers, one sees that for SPECfp_rate_base2000 (the mac lost in
    the int test) the scores for the dell 650 ARE NOT LOWER than the dual g5
    2 gig. As far as SPEC is concerned, the g5 IS NOT the fastest PC, even
    using Apple's definition
    no Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: dual g5 2 gig DOESNT spank Dell

    In article <no-FA05F2.23593823062003newssvr19-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
    no <nono.com> wrote:
    > Strange, when one goes to [url]www.spec.org[/url] to get the officially obtained
    > spec numbers, one sees that for SPECfp_rate_base2000 (the mac lost in
    > the int test) the scores for the dell 650 ARE NOT LOWER than the dual g5
    > 2 gig. As far as SPEC is concerned, the g5 IS NOT the fastest PC, even
    > using Apple's definition
    The higher specbenchs on the spec site are probably due to the intel
    platform making use of a different compiler than gcc-3.3..
    Vareck Bostrom Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: dual g5 2 gig DOESNT spank Dell

    Vareck Bostrom <v.bostromattbi.com> wrote:
    > no <nono.com> wrote:
    >> Strange, when one goes to [url]www.spec.org[/url] to get the officially obtained
    >> spec numbers, one sees that for SPECfp_rate_base2000 (the mac lost in
    >> the int test) the scores for the dell 650 ARE NOT LOWER than the dual g5
    >> 2 gig. As far as SPEC is concerned, the g5 IS NOT the fastest PC, even
    >> using Apple's definition
    >
    >The higher specbenchs on the spec site are probably due to the intel
    >platform making use of a different compiler than gcc-3.3..
    That and a commercial malloc library costing about a thousand dollars.

    -- Erick
    Erick Bryce Wong Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: dual g5 2 gig DOESNT spank Dell

    Vareck Bostrom <v.bostromattbi.com> wrote:
    > [email]ericksfu.ca[/email] (Erick Bryce Wong) wrote:
    >> Vareck Bostrom <v.bostromattbi.com> wrote:
    >> > no <nono.com> wrote:
    >> >> Strange, when one goes to [url]www.spec.org[/url] to get the officially obtained
    >> >> spec numbers, one sees that for SPECfp_rate_base2000 (the mac lost in
    >> >> the int test) the scores for the dell 650 ARE NOT LOWER than the dual g5
    >> >> 2 gig. As far as SPEC is concerned, the g5 IS NOT the fastest PC, even
    >> >> using Apple's definition
    >> >
    >> >The higher specbenchs on the spec site are probably due to the intel
    >> >platform making use of a different compiler than gcc-3.3..
    >>
    >> That and a commercial malloc library costing about a thousand dollars.
    >
    >Which library is that?
    Something called MicroQuill SmartHeap library. Here's the config file
    from the SPEC web site:

    [url]http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q2/cpu2000-20030407-02062.cfg[/url]

    -- Erick
    Erick Bryce Wong Guest

  5. Moderated Post

    Default Re: dual g5 2 gig DOESNT spank Dell

    Removed by Administrator
    Heywood Mogroot Guest
    Moderated Post

  6. #6

    Default Re: dual g5 2 gig DOESNT spank Dell

    no <nono.com> wrote in message news:<no-FA05F2.23593823062003newssvr19-ext.news.prodigy.com>...
    > Strange, when one goes to [url]www.spec.org[/url] to get the officially obtained
    > spec numbers, one sees that for SPECfp_rate_base2000 (the mac lost in
    > the int test) the scores for the dell 650 ARE NOT LOWER than the dual g5
    > 2 gig. As far as SPEC is concerned, the g5 IS NOT the fastest PC, even
    > using Apple's definition
    That's because the scores on SPECs website are using some sort of
    different scale, I did earlier see officiall SPEC scores for a single
    1.8Ghz G5 which scored ~1250/~1350 for Int/FP. I'll try and find the
    URL.

    Bob
    Beelsebob Guest

  7. Moderated Post

    Default Re: dual g5 2 gig DOESNT spank Dell

    Removed by Administrator
    flip Guest
    Moderated Post

  8. Moderated Post

    Default Re: dual g5 2 gig DOESNT spank Dell

    Removed by Administrator
    James Boswell Guest
    Moderated Post

  9. Moderated Post

    Default Re: dual g5 2 gig DOESNT spank Dell

    Removed by Administrator
    Flip Guest
    Moderated Post

  10. #10

    Default Re: dual g5 2 gig DOESNT spank Dell

    In comp.sys.mac.system Beelsebob <tatd100cs.york.ac.uk> wrote:
    > no <nono.com> wrote in message news:<no-FA05F2.23593823062003newssvr19-ext.news.prodigy.com>...
    >> Strange, when one goes to [url]www.spec.org[/url] to get the officially obtained
    >> spec numbers, one sees that for SPECfp_rate_base2000 (the mac lost in
    >> the int test) the scores for the dell 650 ARE NOT LOWER than the dual g5
    >> 2 gig. As far as SPEC is concerned, the g5 IS NOT the fastest PC, even
    >> using Apple's definition
    >
    > That's because the scores on SPECs website are using some sort of
    > different scale, I did earlier see officiall SPEC scores for a single
    > 1.8Ghz G5 which scored ~1250/~1350 for Int/FP. I'll try and find the
    > URL.
    No, it is simply because they used a different compiler. Intel's own
    optimising compiler produces faster code in a lot of situations than
    GCC, and especially in SPEC. In real life, you'll see a lot of speed
    difference when the application can use the ram, like photoshop
    or a datawarehouse.

    Stephan.
    Stephan Eggermont Guest

  11. Moderated Post

    Default Re: dual g5 2 gig DOESNT spank Dell

    Removed by Administrator
    Craig Koller Guest
    Moderated Post

  12. Moderated Post

    Default Re: dual g5 2 gig DOESNT spank Dell

    Removed by Administrator
    Flip Guest
    Moderated Post

  13. Moderated Post

    Default Re: dual g5 2 gig DOESNT spank Dell

    Removed by Administrator
    George Graves Guest
    Moderated Post

  14. #14

    Default Re: dual g5 2 gig DOESNT spank Dell

    Stephan Eggermont <stephanturtle.stack.nl> writes:
    > No, it is simply because they used a different compiler. Intel's
    > own optimising compiler produces faster code in a lot of situations
    > than GCC, and especially in SPEC. In real life, you'll see a lot of
    > speed difference when the application can use the ram, like
    > photoshop or a datawarehouse.
    Keep in mind that the GCC crew may not have access to a lot of
    proprietary algor/optimization ithms. Intel keeps the source code and
    optimizations secret so people will shell out cash for it. Though I'm
    sure Apple has probably changed some code (which they're obliged to
    release under the GPL).

    There's also the fact that the Intel compiler only has to run on two
    architectures x86 and IA-64. How may architectures does GCC run on?
    There probably are compromises done in the name of portability. Heck,
    you can get a GCC port for the 6811 (not 68011!), a 8-bit
    microcontroller.

    For anyone interested, GCC is at: [url]http://gcc.gnu.org/[/url]

    --
    David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, [url]http://www.magda.ca/[/url]
    Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
    the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
    under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI
    David Magda Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: dual g5 2 gig DOESNT spank Dell

    David Magda <dmagda+trace030624ee.ryerson.ca> writes:
    [...]
    > proprietary algor/optimization ithms. Intel keeps the source code and
    [...] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Oops. That should probably be "optimization algorithms".
    David Magda Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: dual g5 2 gig DOESNT spank Dell

    Tim Smith <reply_in_groupmouse-potato.com> writes:
    > In article <bd936i$1ls$1morgoth.sfu.ca>, Erick Bryce Wong wrote:
    > >>> >The higher specbenchs on the spec site are probably due to the
    > >>> >intel platform making use of a different compiler than
    > >>> >gcc-3.3..
    > >>>
    > >>> That and a commercial malloc library costing about a thousand dollars.
    > >>
    > >>Which library is that?
    > >
    > > Something called MicroQuill SmartHeap library. Here's the config file
    > > from the SPEC web site:
    > >
    > > [url]http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q2/cpu2000-20030407-02062.cfg[/url]
    >
    > That's for Dell. Check the results for Intel. They are using the Microsoft
    > libraries, and get similar or better performance, so it is doubtful that the
    > MicroQuill library is responsible.
    Intel has their OWN compiler that they have developed to work
    extraordinarily well with SPEC marks. Of course, this is not
    "tweaking" or "cheating" despite the fact few people actually use the
    Intel compiler and there have been cases where Intel chips have seen
    a 10% gain in SPEC for the SAME chips just because of an update to
    this compiler.

    --
    Edward Dodge

    /Confabulation Consulting/
    Edward Dodge Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: dual g5 2 gig DOESNT spank Dell

    George Graves <gmgravespacbell.net> writes:

    > Don't understand why all this ing contest stuff is so
    > important. To Mac users, it's just not important which computer is
    > faster. If it were, most would have jumped ship long since. To
    > "potential Mac customers" all that matters (speed-wise) is the clock
    > speed. As long as the clock-speed numbers don't match, the one with
    > the lower number is seen as not as powerful. Things like machine
    > throughput, memory pipeline speeds, and other enhancements don't
    > mean beans if the raw MHz on the Mac is still lower than the raw MHz
    > on the Wintel side and it is.
    George, the way I explain it to people is by asking them a
    question: "Are there any other chips IN THE WORLD that run FASTER
    than 3GHz?" They have to search their memory banks for a while
    before they say, "No." Then I ask them: "Are there any other chips
    IN THE WORLD that are more powerful than the Pentium 4?" I then
    opine: "Of course, or every chip would be a Pentium 4!" Then I
    lead them to the conclusion: "What then do you think all those GHz
    are REALLY about?"

    --
    Edward Dodge

    /Confabulation Consulting/
    Edward Dodge Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: dual g5 2 gig DOESNT spank Dell

    In comp.sys.mac.system Tim Smith <reply_in_groupmouse-potato.com> wrote:
    > What I think is most interesting about the SPEC numbers is that AMD
    > uses the Intel compiler for the SPEC results, both for Athlon and
    > for Opteron.
    If you dig deeply enough, there are also some GCC SPECint2000 results
    for Opteron on [url]http://www.spec.org[/url].

    rick jones
    --
    oxymoron n, commuter in a gas-guzzling luxury SUV with an American flag
    these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
    feel free to post, OR email to raj in cup.hp.com but NOT BOTH...
    Rick Jones Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: dual g5 2 gig DOESNT spank Dell

    > Strange, when one goes to [url]www.spec.org[/url] to get the officially obtained
    > spec numbers, one sees that for SPECfp_rate_base2000 (the mac lost in
    > the int test) the scores for the dell 650 ARE NOT LOWER than the dual g5
    > 2 gig. As far as SPEC is concerned, the g5 IS NOT the fastest PC, even
    > using Apple's definition
    There is a very interesting article dealing with this issue:

    [url]http://www.haxial.com/spls-soapbox/apple-powermac-G5/[/url]

    It seems that Apple did cheat on the benchmarks...

    so long,
    Sven

    Sven Mumenthaler Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: dual g5 2 gig DOESNT spank Dell

    In article <m1fzlzgk8z.fsfg3.com>, Edward Dodge <someoneg3.com>
    wrote:
    > Tim Smith <reply_in_groupmouse-potato.com> writes:
    >
    > > In article <bd936i$1ls$1morgoth.sfu.ca>, Erick Bryce Wong wrote:
    > > >>> >The higher specbenchs on the spec site are probably due to the
    > > >>> >intel platform making use of a different compiler than
    > > >>> >gcc-3.3..
    > > >>>
    > > >>> That and a commercial malloc library costing about a thousand dollars.
    > > >>
    > > >>Which library is that?
    > > >
    > > > Something called MicroQuill SmartHeap library. Here's the config file
    > > > from the SPEC web site:
    > > >
    > > > [url]http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/res2003q2/cpu2000-20030407-02062.cfg[/url]
    > >
    > > That's for Dell. Check the results for Intel. They are using the Microsoft
    > > libraries, and get similar or better performance, so it is doubtful that the
    > > MicroQuill library is responsible.
    >
    > Intel has their OWN compiler that they have developed to work
    > extraordinarily well with SPEC marks. Of course, this is not
    > "tweaking" or "cheating" despite the fact few people actually use the
    > Intel compiler and there have been cases where Intel chips have seen
    > a 10% gain in SPEC for the SAME chips just because of an update to
    > this compiler.
    >
    > --
    > Edward Dodge
    >
    > /Confabulation Consulting/
    garbage in garbage out. It's an old saying.

    s
    Spider Guest

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Dual mail delivery from scheduled task on dual-instanceCFMX7 Enterprise system
    By imag_je in forum Coldfusion Server Administration
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 17th, 10:59 AM
  2. Dell computers
    By Don77 webforumsuser@macromedia.com in forum Macromedia Flash Actionscript
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: February 7th, 11:15 AM
  3. Dual Xeon Linux vs. dual G5 : Where can I find direct speed comparison?
    By Jim Kroger in forum Mac Applications & Software
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: August 6th, 06:46 AM
  4. OT- DELL = HELL
    By Bill Ray in forum Macromedia Fireworks
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: August 3rd, 10:13 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139