Article:		Developer Notes from WWDC 2003
Subject:		Performance?
Date:		2003-06-24 11:14:48
From:		anonymous2
OK. We all know that benchmarking is a black art, YMMV, etc. However, I have to ask how seriously to take the critique of Apple's performance claims one can read at http://www.haxial.com/spls-soapbox/apple-powermac-G5/ I'm not interested in bashing (WIntel nor Mac), but in whether the apparently substantive issues raised by the above article are valid. E.g. whether the use of a tweaked malloc, non-use of hyperthreading, etc. could be legitimately called benchmark biasing.

Showing messages 1 through 6 of 6.

• Performance?
  2003-06-25 08:29:38  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Does anybody understand why the new G5 is only a few percent faster than the 32 bit Dell system?
  The Mac is a 64 bit machine, with a really fast bus and ran applications that were optimized and compiled for the 64 bit processor on a 64 bit operating system.
  Why the hell did it not completely knock down the Dell?
  What happens with the G5 if the first 64 bit Xeon appears? Looks like it will fall behind the intel processors again soon, doesn't it?

• Performance?
  2003-06-25 07:02:54  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  The guy has an axe to grind. He's ported his apps to OSX but got irritated by "unkind" reviews of his apps by "Mac zealots". Not liking zealotry of any kind I felt some sympathy for him. That is until I tried to use Haxial Text Edit. Now I understand the complaints. An App ported to the platform with the minimum of effort, buggy and no attempt at modification to make it behave like other OSX applications. His attempt to portray himself as a "Mac User" is disingenuous. I've no doubt he does test his apps on OSX, but my impression is of someone who thought they could make a quick buck from Mac users rather than somone who is enthusiastic about or committed to the platform.
  
  He makes some valid criticisms of the way Apple has used SPEC, but is extremely one sided. For example, if SPEC gave any advantage to AltiVec performance I could understand his points on SSE2. It doesn't, and he has since admitted he was wrong on Apple disabling SSE2 anyway. Don't take this seriously. Wait until the G5 comes out and look for serious less partisan reviews of performance on applications that you want to use.

• Performance?
  2003-06-24 22:56:10  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  http://www.dell.com/us/en/esg/topics/power_ps3q02-khalid.htm
  
  Hint: read the section titled "Testing performance with SPEC CPU2000", it's very very enlightening.

• Performance?
  2003-06-24 16:15:56  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  i'm not a programmer of developer and don't know much about SPEC and the difference b/n compilers. but, i've looked through the veritech pdf of Apple's tests and apple wins some tests and loses others. the fact that apple published its wins is not offensive at all. that's called marketing...so in a sense, their claim to be the fastest is partially right. informed people can make their own decisions...

• Performance?
  2003-06-24 12:52:42  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  As far as I know, official SPEC tests have some extensive rules to avoid benchmark cheating. So I guess, that as long as SPEC.org doesn't sue Apple, you could safely say that the benchmarks were done correctly.

• Performance?
  2003-06-24 12:32:19  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Let me ask you this: Should we take the Dell benchmarks any more seriously (ie: the ones not measured by Apple/Veritest?) Why isn't the author of that article questioning the Dell benchmarks?
  
  The man telleth a one sided story, methinks...