Of course, by now, you’ve had a chance to read TMO’s News around the Web, particularly the link to the G4/Pentium 4 “bake off” set up by TechTV.

What always interests me are the comments (for an “insignificant” computer maker, Apple sure does generate the most response…). What equally interested me was the fact that TechTV used the low end G4 and the high-end Pentium 4 (which isn’t even shipping, btw; with that logic, they shoudl have chosen a G4 that “isn’t shipping.” but I digress…).

My point is this: there are many holes in this set up. I just mentioned one in the previous parenthetical comments…

Oh, yes. You can read the article yourself at [url=http://www.techtv.com/news/story/0,24195,3339307,00.html]http://www.techtv.com/news/story/0,24195,3339307,00.html [/url]

Peace to you! my Mac-using brothas and sistas.

_________________
“Free your mind & your butt will follow…”

Rodney O. Lain
Mac Observer Columnist, iBrotha’s page at TMO

iBrotha.com, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: iBrotha on 2001-07-31 22:20 ]</font>

Ya… I used to work for TechTV, and all I can say is… they suck.  I read that comparison, and the whole time thought, “JEEEZUS, how could the be so bad at this stuff.. Its THEIR JOB, and that comparison was the best they could do?”

Jeeez.

When I worked there, I would visit the website every now and then and just see error after error… Eventually I just stopped telling the writers/producers they were wrong… They hardly even tried.

I don’t think they got the results they were expecting, and were disappointed.  They talked trash throughout the keynote about Macs, and now they have to eat their doo.  They are going to “update” the results, i.e. find a circumstance so the PC can somehow “win”.  Their excuse for not being able to find cross platform apps?  A blatant lie.  Of course I am biased, hehe   But anyone listening to their MacWorld broadcast would realize - so are they.

i didn’t realise tech tv were anti-mac - the test seemed relatively balanced as non-scientific type tests go (and i should know, i’m a scientist).  what was interesting was that if you take all the results and say you have to do all those procedures on 100 images, the Mac will finish over half an hour before the pc. now i don’t know what sort of image processing creative types do, but i can imagine that over the space of a year, a mac based company could save amounts of time measured perhaps in weeks or even months… how much is that worth to them, and why isn’t (or are they) Apple pushing that? Never mind megahertz, what about megaweeks?

adam

(which isn’t even shipping, btw; with that logic, they shoudl have chosen a G4 that “isn’t shipping.” but I digress…).

So for a degree of symetry, perhaps they should have gone with a G4 666 mhz? (otherwise known as the mac from hell)

^_^

Hey all…for the record, later on today I’ll be posting a follow-up to my “award-winning” iBook and iMac Shoot-Out charts (ok, they didn’t win any awards but I’ve received a ton of e-mail and praise for them!).

In any event, I’ll be posting an across-the-board price-performance shootout chart for the new G4 system vs. P4 systems.  I’ll post again when it’s complete.

Meanwhile, here’s the URLs for the the other two once again:

iBook/Laptop shootout:

http://www.aapltalk.com/roguesgallery/pages/statsandinfo/ibook_shootout_0501.html

iMac/Entry-level desktop shootout:

http://www.aapltalk.com/roguesgallery/pages/statsandinfo/imac_shootout0701.html

—BlueDjinn

Just a few points and comments:

iBrotha wrote:

[[[What always interests me are the comments (for an “insignificant” computer maker, Apple sure does generate the most response…)]]]

Agree 100%

[[[What equally interested me was the fact that TechTV used the low end G4 and the high-end Pentium 4 (which isn’t even shipping, btw; with that logic, they should have chosen a G4 that “isn’t shipping.” but I digress…). ]]]

Yep, and as someone was alluded to later, the reason was obvious. 

—————————————————————————————————————
deepgeek wrote:

[[[ Ya… I used to work for TechTV, and all I can say is… they suck. I read that comparison, and the whole time thought, “JEEEZUS, how could the be so bad at this stuff.. Its THEIR JOB, and that comparison was the best they could do?” ]]]

Yep, after talking to one of the main PS programmers over at Adobe, I feel that the tests were way off too. He feels as you do. That they screwed something up. Adobe claims that the Mac should have a.) beaten the P4 in ALL the tests and b.) the results for the Mac should’ve been a lot better. Now, that’s really funny considering the G4 looked impressive.

[[[ I don’t think they got the results they were expecting, and were disappointed. ]]]

You are absolutely right. They didn’t. And they didn’t want the G4 to win. Which leads me to believe that they chose the low-end Mac because they thought that the 1.8 GHz. machine would most certainly clean it’s clock (pardon the pun)   My sources say that a G4 500 would have kept pace with the P4 and would have beaten in some tests. What I also find odd is that the guy over at Adobe was so certain that the Mac used in the test was underperforming that he just found it hard to believe. That’s wen I developed the sneaking suspicion that they deliberately tried to handicap the Mac even further. Believe me people, it’s all marketing with Intel. Besides, it’s not the speed of the machine that makes you more productive.

[[[ They talked trash throughout the keynote about Macs ]]]

They certainly did. I have the whole thing on VHS tape.
They sounded like a bunch of fools too!  If you heard them talking you’d swear they were talking about Wintel and just got confused.

[[[They are going to “update” the results, i.e. find a circumstance so the PC can somehow “win”. ]]]

I know for a fact that they are already trying… 
—————————————————————————————————————
Anonymous(scientist) wrote:

[[[ i didn’t realize tech TV were anti-Mac - the test seemed relatively balanced as non-scientific type tests go (and i should know, I’m a scientist). what was interesting was that if you take all the results and say you have to do all those procedures on 100 images, the Mac will finish over half an hour before the pc. now i don’t know what sort of image processing creative types do, but i can imagine that over the space of a year, a mac based company could save amounts of time measured perhaps in weeks or even months… how much is that worth to them, and why isn’t (or are they) Apple pushing that? Never mind megahertz, what about megaweeks? ]]]

Excellent points! E-mail me, we should talk.
—————————————————————————————————————-
Now for my comments on the TechTV “bake-off” found here:

http://www.techtv.com/news/story/0,24195,3339307,00.html

I’ll repost an e-mail that I sent out. It states all the things that I want to point out and saves me from retyping it all

<START>

The main thing to keep in mind is that the Mac was a 733 MHz.  machine with PC 133 Memory. The Windows box was a 1.8 GHz. Pentium 4 with RAMBUS memory. That means that to many people, the Windows machine was the “latest and greatest” right? Supposedly (nearly) 1.1 GHz. FASTER! Or to put it in simpler terms, The Pentium 4 in this comparison would be viewed as being 1067 MHz. faster than the Mac (notice the simplistic number scales most uninformed people continue to use). Furthermore, keep in mind that TechTV is pretty much a PC centric site; which means that Macs are second class citizens there. Nevertheless, the test proved interesting. Let’s look at a few excerpts along with some of my comments.

[[[Did the sub-gigahertz G4 win out over the 1.8-GHz Intel behemoth? Well, yes and no. ]]]

OK, so let’s look at which tests the 733 G4 actually won and lost.

[[[The G4 showed impressive strength in the RGB-to-CMYK color-conversion test by turning in a time of 26.2 seconds compared to 45.2 seconds on the P4 system—a very noticeable 73 percent quicker]]]   

19 seconds is VERY noticeable. And this is on a machine that’s at Apples low end of the desktop spectrum. I would imagine the 500 MHz. G4 would actually be able to keep pace with the 1.8 GHz. box. That’s sad for Intel.

[[[ Image rotation was the other test that had the G4 wiping the floor with our Pentium test box. While the P4 was able to finish this task in 23.4 seconds, Apple’s G4 powered its way through in 16.5 seconds—a respectable 41 percent faster ]]]

Well, if you do the math, it’s actually 42% faster…   ;-)  Nevertheless less, This is from a Mac that is less than half as fast. Nearly 7 seconds faster.

[[[ The P4 found its legs in the Gaussian Blur test (see the results) and Unsharp Mask test (see the results). The G4 managed to turn in times of 10.8 and 13.1 seconds respectively, but the P4 bested it with times of 7.5 and 8.4 seconds—44 percent and 56 percent faster, respectively. Impressive percentages, but in terms of actual time the differences weren’t all that great. ]]]   

This is what I’ve been saying for the LONGEST time now… On the tests that the P4 wins out, it doesn’t win by any meaningful length of time. The P4 at 1.8 GHz. is really lame if you ask me. Why Windows users fall for the hype surrounding MHz. ratings, I’ll never know. Remember, this is a PC-centric site doing these tests.  I remember a PCWorld article that had a simple G4 500 box running circles around the fastest 1 GHz. box they could find.  I have that link somewhere.

[[[Image reduction and Lighting Effects were our two final tests. The G4 was able to finish reducing the image in 3.7 seconds—about 11 percent faster than the P4’s time of 4.1 seconds]]]

Again, the G4 is faster… So, if not for actual speed  then what on earth do those MHz/GHz. numbers mean?? Wintel looks really sad. I’d also have to say that since Adobe can muster such impressive results from the G4, other developers can as well. I expect the OSX version to extend the lead even further…   :-)

[[[The P4, with its optimized Lighting Effects plug-in, managed to win this test with a time of 9.5 seconds beating the G4 and its time of 11.6—averaging 22 percent faster (see the results). ]]]

WOW, 2 seconds is suuuuch a loooooooong time to wait!  ;-)   Again, this shows that the actual time interval is MEANINGLESS. only 2 seconds faster from a machine that’s supposed to be the latest and greatest and 1067 MHz. faster?! Still, my sources tell me that the Mac should have won this test by at least 10%.

[[[ The dark side of benchmarking computers is that anyone can put together a scenario in which one computer is shown to dominate another—aka selective benchmarking. Only with well-written and equally optimized applications for differing platforms can one hope to come away with any meaningful results. ]]]

I only hear them say this when the Mac comes out as the victor from their tests. You never hear them say that when they selectively run tests showing the PC as faster.

[[[This particular benchmark focused on photo editing. Tests like these are not the best representation of overall performance.]]]

And which tests other than everyday use are?  We all know that people are certainly more productive with Macs than with PC’s. Why can’t they just say that the Macintosh would be the best choice if the application was available for both platforms? There is far less configuration headaches, far less crashes, better functionality… Even when the system takes a dump, it’s FAR, FAR more forgiving than ANY flavor of Windows. Most simple users can have the machine up to spec in no time at all. Like I said, you can buy a PC/Windows box and constantly work ON your system or you can buy a Mac and get work DONE WITH YOUR SYSTEM. Period.

[[[Nor do they accurately depict the end-user’s experience.]]]

Once again, they NEVER say this when their tests show opposite results. Still, it’s sad that Intel and the rest of the PC world believe that a number stickered onto the side of a beige crate mean something. These people must have a very low self esteem. Having that HUGE-sounding number must make them feel superior. As if they have something over the next guy. The point is, a secretary can only do so much with a computer. Even the most hard-core secretary has reached the threshold of noticeable performance between say a 1.8 GHz machine and a 400 MHz. machine. That leaves us with all the scientific and computationally intensive routines that aren’t as common. The G4 more than holds it’s own in that area as we’ve already seen time and again.

[[[You can be sure that this topic will be constantly revisited and updated by TechTV Labs. ]]]

This usually means that they can’t believe that the Wintel crate took such a hammering and that they will be looking into having a rematch that shows the PC as having a little better score. Now, whether you want to believe the tests of not, the truth is that Intel and the PC world are embarrassed.  And they should be. They constantly tout that they have the biggest, fastest and most state-of-the-art machines available when in reality all they have is a big bunch of junk. They took a machine that wasn’t even shipping (fastest that they could find),  tweaked the hell out of it, chose a low-end Mac, handicapped it and the Mac still won. They claim that their machines are half the price of Mac boxes, which we all know is bullshit. Even if they were, I’d have to say that given the results of this particular test, Mac users would be getting a machine that’s nearly twice as fast at less than half the clock speed and power consumption. That’s too funny. To be fair and realistic, the Mac desktops are not that much more expensive than their PC counterparts. That price differential is CLEARLY offset by all the other advantages that the Mac has to offer over Windows machines. Still, people shop price instead of doing the smart thing. They just end up having more problems and paying more in the end.

As far as the low-end consumer desktops go, the iMac matches anything that Wintel has to offer. Likewise, with laptops, there is absolutely no comparison. The Mac laptops offer the BEST price/performance than ANY PC/Windows based tray out there. I have another sneaking suspicion that tells me that the reason PC users are reluctant to purchase a Mac is because they would be “newbies” all over again. All those years of Intel/Windows/DOS conditioning would now be useless. Plus, they wouldn’t be used to doing things the “Mac” way. You know the type. The people who were trained to hammer nails with soup spoons… Or how about the ones that have gotten soooooo conditioned that they actually denounce the way things are done on the Mac because “it isn’t what they are used to”, implying that this is the way Windows does it? To them, the Windows way is the correct way… Forget the fact that the “Mac way” might be (is?) the better way to do things. The truth is, they cold probably learn it a lot quicker than they think and be much better off. ]]]

<end>

Cheers,

Ed M.

The problem here is that people will read this and use it as ammunition to not buy Macs. What I’d like to see someone do is what is common in the scientific circles, reproduce claimed test results.

If a scientist comes out and claims to have found a breakthrough his or her scientists pals in other labs try to replicate the experiment. I’m sure you all remember back when a guy named Ponds claimed to be able to create cold fusion which had the potential of creating unlimited, non-polluting power. Scientists around the world tried to duplicate the experiment but most failed. Still, enough did get results enough to continue the research.

When Jobs does his P4 busting tests on stage techno-mags should try to duplicate those results to either prove or disprove the results. This is very easy to understand by consumers; it either works as advertised or it doesn’t. These mags can add their own tests if they want, but should start with proving or disproving Mac’s claims.

And therein lies the problem. I think that these guys, like TechTV, do reproduce Apple’s test results. They don’t advertise this fact because it would add validation to Apple’s claims.

Whatever happened to unbiased reporting of the facts?

OK, guys, here’s the G4-vs-P4 Tower price/performance comparison chart as advertised:

http://www.aapltalk.com/roguesgallery/pages/statsandinfo/g4_shootout0701.html

Comments welcome, but please read the disclaimers above *and* below the chart first!

—BlueDjinn

I’m currently reading a book called Voodoo Science by Robert Park that has a good deal of information on Fleishmann and Pons’ cold fusion debacle—in addition to homeopathy, perpetual motion and strapping magnets to your knees. There’s also a chapter on those who put all their faith in science. Read about the issues concerning long-distance spaceflight—we’re never leaving this rock.

Voodoo Science at amazon.com
(No, I don’t get cash for the link, I just like the book )

I just needed to see the figures and figure out what this shoot-off is actually saying.

RESULTS (from TechTV):
RGB - CMYG conversion: G4 26.2s P4 45.2s G4 73% faster
Image Rotation: G4 16.5s P4 23.4s G4 41% faster
Gaussian Blur: G4 10.8s P4 8.4s P4 44% faster
Unsharp Mask: G4 13.1s P4 8.4s P4 22% faster
Lighting Effects: G4 11.6s P4 9.5s P4 22% faster
Image Reduction: G4 3.7s P4 4.1s G4 11% faster

My coalated numbers.
Complete Job (all tasks): G4 82.1s P4 98.1s
  - This makes the G4 19% faster than the P4 and results in a noticable difference of 16 seconds.

Averageing the wins: G4 averaged 42% faster in its three wins P4 averaged 41% faster in its three wins.

I can see why TechTV was upset, I can’t find any way that the P4/1.8GHz comes out better than the G4/733MHz except in clock rating, and of course price (both being higher).

_________________
___________________________________________
A man who finds himself in an empty room…
is alone. - DL

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DanLyons on 2001-07-31 12:45 ]</font>

On 2001-07-31 12:20, DanLyons wrote:

I can see why TechTV was upset, I can’t find any way that the P4/1.8GHz comes out better than the G4/733MHz except in clock rating, and of course price.

Dan—check out my comparison chart (link in my post above) and you’ll see that even the price differential is bogus!

—BlueDjinn

Please note the recent edit.  My meaning was that it beat the G4 out by having a higher price,like the higher clock rating - it was supposed to be a joke, but I didn’t phrase it very well.

By the way, love your comparison charts!

On 2001-07-31 12:46, BlueDjinn wrote:
Dan—check out my comparison chart (link in my post above) and you’ll see that even the price differential is bogus!

—BlueDjinn

_________________
___________________________________________
A man who finds himself in an empty room…
is alone. - DL

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DanLyons on 2001-07-31 15:37 ]</font>

VSeward’s post is worth contemplation.

there seems to be a lot of Mac owner self-congratulaion here. I have a buch of G4s and high spec PCs, and I’ve got to say I’m amazed that TechTV managed to mess this up. Admittedly, I don’t own any P4 based systems, but I can confidently assure other posters that a tricked out Athlon DDR machine can eat ANY G4 for breakfast. There are a COUPLE of apps (Cleaner 5 and Photoshop using SELECTED fuctions) that can beat my PCs handsomely, but for some others - even G4 optimised apps like C4D - are ABSOLUTELY ROASTED by the PC. The Pentium 4 has been a bit of a disaster so far for Intel (much like the G4 in that respect…) but during the same period the AMD K7 has blossomed into an outstanding high performance CPU, and the heart of probably the best high performance desktop computers currently available - pound for pound. I’m a Mac owner and supporter of some years standing, but I don’t ignore the truth about performance as many of you seem to.

On 2001-07-31 19:23, alanpartridge wrote:
I’m a Mac owner and supporter of some years standing, but I don’t ignore the truth about performance as many of you seem to.

I don’t think people are ignoring anything. The subject is a whether a the TechTV’s comparison is unbiased, and we all agree that’s it’s not. I’m sure that there are tricks that we can do to get any PC to run faster, just as there things that can trick out a G4 to run at 1GHZ or higher. Comparing Macs and PCs, as TechTV did honestly say, is not easy, which is why claim validation is so important. Many Mac fans have also known that AMD’s offerings do usually come out on top when comparing them to current Mac lineups, which is the reason so many are up in arms about how slow Motorola is in bringing decent processors to the market.

Apple claimed they would close the MHZ gap. That they are doing. Not as fast as some ould like, but it’s happening. They are also mounting an assault of the “Megaheartz Myth”, which is based in truth. We just need honest unbiased reporting to see what is really going on between the players (Intel, AMD, Apple/IBM/Motorola).