# Apple G5 Vs AMD 64 Athlon Vs Pentium 4 Extreme



## pjmonk (Nov 18, 2003)

I was reading an article in a computer magazine.  It was comparing the Dual 2Ghz G5 with the AMD Athlon 64 FX-51 (2.2Ghz) and the Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition (3.2 Ghz).  What my hang up is about is whenever there is a comparison between the G5 and and other computers they always give  fairytale prices for what it would cost to get one of the computer being compared.  For example the price on the Dual 2 Ghz G5 is $2999.00, then the article gives the price for the AMD Athlon ($733.00) and the Pentium 4 Extreme ($925.00).  Now we all know what you get for these prices isn't the same as what you get when you pay for a G5.  The tests are always questionable because they never tell the reader under what conditions they tested the chips, we all know what you get in a Dual 2 Ghz G5 but what stop the magazine pumping up the computer for the games test and then using a different configuration for another test.  What I was after was an article that tested everything on the computer, a complete test.  Which compares a package that a consumer would buy of the shelf not a box that a technician throws together.  I really want to rip it up the author of this article.


----------



## fryke (Nov 18, 2003)

Well, it's really, really difficult to compare Macs to PCs in a way that seems both fair to the Mac crowd and the PC crowd.

While it's true that one shouldn't compare a clunked together noname PC to a brand computer like the Macintosh, it's also true that you CAN get a noname PC while you can't get a noname Mac. And those cheapo PCs often work better than some of those 'brand' PCs!

In the Mac world, you can choose between some (very few) models - and that's it. In the PC world, you have much more options. You can decide what's more important to you: Processor power, graphics card, harddisk space, design etc. If you want to, you can go very cheap, but you can also spend a lot of money. On the Mac side, you simply don't _have_ this choice. You want processing power? You automatically also get faster and bigger harddrives, more expandability and a whole different look than with the iMac.

Simple truth is: I tend to buy Macs (where I _do_ care about the brand, about the design, about the 'whole package') but I also buy noname PCs for testing various things on. Back when I had to decide whether to get a second Mac or a PC as my home network's server, I went with the PC, because I could get much more for the money. It's a machine that only has to do so many things, and it does them well. I don't like to work on Windows, but I don't have to. I work on the Mac.

Now, this magazine might be wrong in your opinion, but it actually just made a choice. It didn't WANT to compare machines that were evenly priced. (Maybe they _would_ have chosen a 900$ G5, but there just _is_ none.)


----------



## pjmonk (Nov 18, 2003)

Thank you for your insight and perspective fryke.  I have to concede that the magazine is a PC magazine and they are going to serve their own interests.


----------



## malexgreen (Nov 19, 2003)

pjmonk said:
			
		

> I was reading an article in a computer magazine.  It was comparing the Dual 2Ghz G5 with the AMD Athlon 64 FX-51 (2.2Ghz) and the Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition (3.2 Ghz).  What my hang up is about is whenever there is a comparison between the G5 and and other computers they always give  fairytale prices for what it would cost to get one of the computer being compared.  For example the price on the Dual 2 Ghz G5 is $2999.00, then the article gives the price for the AMD Athlon ($733.00) and the Pentium 4 Extreme ($925.00).  Now we all know what you get for these prices isn't the same as what you get when you pay for a G5.  The tests are always questionable because they never tell the reader under what conditions they tested the chips, we all know what you get in a Dual 2 Ghz G5 but what stop the magazine pumping up the computer for the games test and then using a different configuration for another test.  What I was after was an article that tested everything on the computer, a complete test.  Which compares a package that a consumer would buy of the shelf not a box that a technician throws together.  I really want to rip it up the author of this article.



Check out the latest issue of _MacWorld_. They actually compare similarly equipped PC's and Macs (high end G5 compared to a PC with Athlon 64 FX, a PC with a 3.2 GHz P4, and another with dual Xeon's).  The bottom line of the article was that PC's are still faster when running app's that have been ported to both PC's and Mac's in most applications, but when you use Mac-only app, e.g. Final Cut Pro, for MPEG encoding, the G5 beats the snot out of all the PCs. So the G5 is not _the_ fastest desktop in the world, but it is now at least competitve.

BTW, the G5 was the cheapest out of the 4 computers compared. Check it out


----------



## lilbandit (Dec 15, 2003)

malexgreen said:
			
		

> Check out the latest issue of _MacWorld_. They actually compare similarly equipped PC's and Macs (high end G5 compared to a PC with Athlon 64 FX, a PC with a 3.2 GHz P4, and another with dual Xeon's).  The bottom line of the article was that PC's are still faster when running app's that have been ported to both PC's and Mac's in most applications, but when you use Mac-only app, e.g. Final Cut Pro, for MPEG encoding, the G5 beats the snot out of all the PCs. So the G5 is not _the_ fastest desktop in the world, but it is now at least competitve.
> 
> BTW, the G5 was the cheapest out of the 4 computers compared. Check it out



I definitely agree, at the moment I am costing a video editing solution for an uncle of mine. He has specific needs, mostly analogue to digital conversion and he wants fairly sophisticated editing capabilities. He is interested in a machine that is at a fairly professional level as he is keen to do some compositing and dvd writing. When I went to look at this type of machine I added up the cost of a G5, dv bridge and final cut pro. Then went over to Dell for a look at their offerings. Dual xeons and a reasonably  similar setup costs within 50-60 euro. To my mind the G5 is a fantastic product. It can compete with the best of them in a way that the previous G4 could not. The price for a top of the range old dual G4 was ridiculous in comparison to the power that a G5 now offers for the same price. Pentiums were faster and cheaper but the G5 is now on an equal footing with anything that is thrown at it. I'll be advising my uncle to wait till after MWSFand then go for a dp 1.8 if it isn't unpgraded before then. The best part of all of this is that I can say buy a Mac because it is blisteringly fast and also has the best operating system in the world! The old argument about speed not being everything has lost none of it's value but it is a pleasure to be on an equal footing!


----------

