systemshootouts.org— This is a great chart which shows which Mac , Pentium, Pentium M, and AMD chips are equivalent. This was great when I bought a new laptop.
Oct 22, 2005View in Crawl 4
Spin--The Inspirion 6000 on the site which you refer to was configured today, exactly as shown. Every dollar is accounted for at the bottom.If you read the FAQ (as one should always do), you'll see that the point of these comparisons is to use the *price* as the determining factor. I choose a specific price point--in this case, $2,000 even--and ask "what's the best system I can get for that price?" In this instance, I was looking for a 15" laptop with $2,000 to spend.I have assorted other rules which have to be adhered to as well--ALL components MUST be purchased directly from the manufacturer's website (ie, no 3rd-party upgrades unless they're sold on Apple or Dell's sites); no refurbs; and so on.Read the FAQ and I believe you'll understand the site a bit better.
I'd say you are underestimating PPC chips. My 1.2ghz iBook took the place of my 2800+ Athlon PC with no slow down. I have no experience with the higher end Macs, but I'd say they're probably faster than they are rated.The only thing it can't do as well is games because of the video card.
FYI--due to popular demand, I've thrown in the new Dual-Core G5 systems, as well as the Quad-Core high-end G5. For the moment, I'm basing the ratings on the only legitimate benchmarks done so far, which can be found here: <a class="user" href="http://lowendmac.com/musings/05/1021.html">http://lowendmac.com/musings/05/1021.html</a>Also, until someone provides better evidence otherwise (which I'm sure many here can do!), I'm going to run with the assumption that a QUAD-core (dual/dual-core) 2.8 GHz Xeon system runs roughly the same as the Quad-core 2.5 GHz G5. Feel free to correct this as appropriate, I'm all ears.FInally, I threw in a few Dual-core Opterons, though I'm sure these are grossly off as well. Again, feel free to tell me where I'm wrong; as long as I get a reasonable concensus, I'll be happy to shuffle the chart as appropriate.
--"You are well known in the community bluedijnn"And what community would that be? I'm not a gearhead (or whatever it is that you call the "community") and never claimed to be.--"but not the way you want to be known."I don't want to be "known" in any particular way. If you believe my site to have some validity, I'm glad to hear it. If you think it's nonsense, that's fine as well.--"In fact 2 of the tech sites I frequent went so far as to immortalize you in a inside joke."Bully for them.--"You act like you know what you are doing and hope enough caveats that state you have no freaking clue on what you are doing will some how back up your credibility. Or at least try to give the article enough credibility so people will waste enough of their time to read it."Actually, I never claim to know a whole lot about benchmarking, as I've never done any head-to-head benchmarking myself, as I clearly state several times. If you think my comparison chart is a load of garbage--and it may very well be--then feel free to correct it, citing your rationale. Some on this site have made similar criticisms, while others feel that it's reasonably close to the mark. This is your guys' territory, not mine, so once again, I'm completely open to shoving the numbers around if they're out of wack.--"Also I have a peeve about people who spread misinformation."Please specify which information is incorrect. In the processor comparison chart, you may very well be correct--so please specify as such, so I can correct it (assuming other knowledgable folks agree with your changes).--"NSS, I didn’t say you did. (post the link)"Fair enough; you're correct, you never claimed this, so this was a strawman argument on my part. I retract this part of my comment.--"Although seeing how you post on other sites it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if that account belongs to you (you had a knack when your site was new to plug it in practically every post)."I'll leave it up to HairClog to clear the air on that one--I don't know who HairClog is, but it certainly isn't me or anyone I know. Which "other sites" did I "have a knack" for posting to? The only tech-related sites which I've ever posted to with any regularity are The Mac Observer (which hosted the Shootouts for a year or so) and The Tech Report (which I haven't mentioned my site on in quite a long time).--"But then again, just like your site, it isn’t based on enough facts to be anything more than speculation and BS."I'm not even sure what "it" you're referring to here.--"Also I don’t need any links to pick apart his articles, even though they will be provided once you do a little reading. Commonsense kicks in seconds after reading one of his articles that the charts are nothing but entertainment produced solely to bring in page hits."Wow!! A guy who authors a website hopes that people will visit their site!! Call the presses!! Of *course* the purpose of the charts is to bring in page hits--that's the purpose of EVERY website, including this one. As for whether the comparisons are "nothing but entertainment", well, if you're "entertained" by charts comparing hardware & software specifications of various computer systems, that's your call...sounds kinda dull to me. Again, some people here seem to find my work useful, others find it useless--but you're the only one who seems to be UPSET about it.--“OMFG I AM VINDICATED LOLLLL!!�? while posting to sites with 0 credibility (and in some cases negative credibility) that don’t show how they tested, what they tested with or anything else that could even possibly start to resemble credibility further prove it."Once again, what in the world are you talking about? Which sites have I "posted" to which have "zero credibility"?--"I mean sweet Jesus, you wouldn’t know a credible benchmark if steve jobs himself kicked you in the teeth."I don't think most people would. Getting kicked in the teeth isn't particularly educational. However, If you'd like to provide a "credible" benchmark for me to use, by all means do so.
these are off... and should not be followed by newbies, who don't know any better...REASON: there are different applications that each processor is good at... for instance, AMD athlon's outperform intel and PPC in gaming applications... intel outperforms both in video encoding, etc.... anyhow... get an AMD X2 if you do a lot of multitasking... or just get an AMD period... much better overall processor...and f*ck PPC... if you're using a mac than you're probably too stupid to even know anything about upgrading... after all, mac are mostly proprietary...i.e. so apple can continue f*cking you in the ass for the life of the system...padow..
bluedjinnOct 22, 2005
Spin--The Inspirion 6000 on the site which you refer to was configured today, exactly as shown. Every dollar is accounted for at the bottom.If you read the FAQ (as one should always do), you'll see that the point of these comparisons is to use the *price* as the determining factor. I choose a specific price point--in this case, $2,000 even--and ask "what's the best system I can get for that price?" In this instance, I was looking for a 15" laptop with $2,000 to spend.I have assorted other rules which have to be adhered to as well--ALL components MUST be purchased directly from the manufacturer's website (ie, no 3rd-party upgrades unless they're sold on Apple or Dell's sites); no refurbs; and so on.Read the FAQ and I believe you'll understand the site a bit better.
kjartanOct 23, 2005
lol, it says that my AMD 3500+ is better than an AMD FX-51. WRONG!
lawnmowerlatteOct 23, 2005
I'd say you are underestimating PPC chips. My 1.2ghz iBook took the place of my 2800+ Athlon PC with no slow down. I have no experience with the higher end Macs, but I'd say they're probably faster than they are rated.The only thing it can't do as well is games because of the video card.
bluedjinnOct 23, 2005
FYI--due to popular demand, I've thrown in the new Dual-Core G5 systems, as well as the Quad-Core high-end G5. For the moment, I'm basing the ratings on the only legitimate benchmarks done so far, which can be found here: <a class="user" href="http://lowendmac.com/musings/05/1021.html">http://lowendmac.com/musings/05/1021.html</a>Also, until someone provides better evidence otherwise (which I'm sure many here can do!), I'm going to run with the assumption that a QUAD-core (dual/dual-core) 2.8 GHz Xeon system runs roughly the same as the Quad-core 2.5 GHz G5. Feel free to correct this as appropriate, I'm all ears.FInally, I threw in a few Dual-core Opterons, though I'm sure these are grossly off as well. Again, feel free to tell me where I'm wrong; as long as I get a reasonable concensus, I'll be happy to shuffle the chart as appropriate.
bluedjinnOct 24, 2005
--"You are well known in the community bluedijnn"And what community would that be? I'm not a gearhead (or whatever it is that you call the "community") and never claimed to be.--"but not the way you want to be known."I don't want to be "known" in any particular way. If you believe my site to have some validity, I'm glad to hear it. If you think it's nonsense, that's fine as well.--"In fact 2 of the tech sites I frequent went so far as to immortalize you in a inside joke."Bully for them.--"You act like you know what you are doing and hope enough caveats that state you have no freaking clue on what you are doing will some how back up your credibility. Or at least try to give the article enough credibility so people will waste enough of their time to read it."Actually, I never claim to know a whole lot about benchmarking, as I've never done any head-to-head benchmarking myself, as I clearly state several times. If you think my comparison chart is a load of garbage--and it may very well be--then feel free to correct it, citing your rationale. Some on this site have made similar criticisms, while others feel that it's reasonably close to the mark. This is your guys' territory, not mine, so once again, I'm completely open to shoving the numbers around if they're out of wack.--"Also I have a peeve about people who spread misinformation."Please specify which information is incorrect. In the processor comparison chart, you may very well be correct--so please specify as such, so I can correct it (assuming other knowledgable folks agree with your changes).--"NSS, I didn’t say you did. (post the link)"Fair enough; you're correct, you never claimed this, so this was a strawman argument on my part. I retract this part of my comment.--"Although seeing how you post on other sites it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if that account belongs to you (you had a knack when your site was new to plug it in practically every post)."I'll leave it up to HairClog to clear the air on that one--I don't know who HairClog is, but it certainly isn't me or anyone I know. Which "other sites" did I "have a knack" for posting to? The only tech-related sites which I've ever posted to with any regularity are The Mac Observer (which hosted the Shootouts for a year or so) and The Tech Report (which I haven't mentioned my site on in quite a long time).--"But then again, just like your site, it isn’t based on enough facts to be anything more than speculation and BS."I'm not even sure what "it" you're referring to here.--"Also I don’t need any links to pick apart his articles, even though they will be provided once you do a little reading. Commonsense kicks in seconds after reading one of his articles that the charts are nothing but entertainment produced solely to bring in page hits."Wow!! A guy who authors a website hopes that people will visit their site!! Call the presses!! Of *course* the purpose of the charts is to bring in page hits--that's the purpose of EVERY website, including this one. As for whether the comparisons are "nothing but entertainment", well, if you're "entertained" by charts comparing hardware & software specifications of various computer systems, that's your call...sounds kinda dull to me. Again, some people here seem to find my work useful, others find it useless--but you're the only one who seems to be UPSET about it.--“OMFG I AM VINDICATED LOLLLL!!�? while posting to sites with 0 credibility (and in some cases negative credibility) that don’t show how they tested, what they tested with or anything else that could even possibly start to resemble credibility further prove it."Once again, what in the world are you talking about? Which sites have I "posted" to which have "zero credibility"?--"I mean sweet Jesus, you wouldn’t know a credible benchmark if steve jobs himself kicked you in the teeth."I don't think most people would. Getting kicked in the teeth isn't particularly educational. However, If you'd like to provide a "credible" benchmark for me to use, by all means do so.
duntukOct 24, 2005
these are off... and should not be followed by newbies, who don't know any better...REASON: there are different applications that each processor is good at... for instance, AMD athlon's outperform intel and PPC in gaming applications... intel outperforms both in video encoding, etc.... anyhow... get an AMD X2 if you do a lot of multitasking... or just get an AMD period... much better overall processor...and f*ck PPC... if you're using a mac than you're probably too stupid to even know anything about upgrading... after all, mac are mostly proprietary...i.e. so apple can continue f*cking you in the ass for the life of the system...padow..