Any performance numbers out yet on Opteron 64 vs. G5?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jacksonestonia
  • Start date Start date
J

jacksonestonia

Both the G5 and the Opteron 64 bit have been out a while now, wonder if
there are any credible comparisons on performance yet? Need to populate
an office, and want to know if there are big differences.

Thanks in advance for any pointers.
-gtk

PS - sorry for crossposting, figured I better ask both camps.
 
jacksonestonia said:
Both the G5 and the Opteron 64 bit have been out a while now, wonder if
there are any credible comparisons on performance yet? Need to populate
an office, and want to know if there are big differences.

Thanks in advance for any pointers.
-gtk

PS - sorry for crossposting, figured I better ask both camps.

First, you don't say what kind of "office" you are intending to
populate. If it is a standard office enviorment, then it probably
doesn't matter too much unless you look a bit deeper.

If you're going to have everyone networked, workgroup printing, net
backup and so on, you will probably need someone skilled in admistering
that network if you go Windows or hire a 3rd party support solution
unless you feel comfortable doing it. Windows has a level of necessary
support do to the security problems. Then there are the numerous and
often updates that MS puts out. While you may make the observation that
PC hardware costs less, if you compare branded stuff, the prices aren't
that different.

But to that 64 bit thing, unless you're doing some heavy lifting, it
isn't going to matter. It won't speed up your typing, browsing or email.
It won't speed up Office, if you use that product. If you're an
architect and need CAD, I don't think any of the apps are yet 64 bit,
like AutoCad. And the same problem is on the Mac, that is currently
there isn't much in apps that take advantage of 64 bit chips.

So, if you have a current investment in Windows, you'd probably be wiser
staying with a PC. If daily administration is a problem and is costing
you significant sums, maybe you should consider Macs and their lower
cost of operation and longer *useful* hardware life.

For the average office there is all the software you could need. While
there is more for the PC, a lot of it is crap. How many do you want to
go through to get a good choice?

I have a buddy in N. Illinois who owns about a half dozen stores that
deal with dancing. All stores have iMacs with POS software and regular
apps for WP, browsing, etc. One store is in Texas and he admins that
remotely via Timbucktu. I think he gets 4-6 years out of his hardware
and has not had to go to any extreme tricks for third party hardware,
cash drawers, barcode scanners, cc auth and so on.

Another place, The Old Town School runs their entire operations on Macs
with a custom 4D product from Footprints. It manages their 5000+
students/week. Membership, classes(adult group/private, and over
virtually every instrument or voice, etc), room asignments, library,
instrument collection and a retail store. They have two locations
connected to same server. One person in bookkeeping admins the system.
The place is perhaps a $5M+/year NFP in Chicago.

The point is, you'll spend less in the long run.

--
Regards,
Jim Polaski
"The measure of a man is what he will do while expecting that he will get nothing in return!"

Macintosh for productivity. Linux for servers. Palm/Visor for mobility. Windows to feed the Black Hole in your IT budget

Windows-the computer you need, Macintosh-The computer you Want!ant!iÝê
 
Ed said:

Interesting, but there's two glaring errors on the x-bit timeline. The
first, and worst, is that they completely disregard NT4 and NT3.1 (released
and Aug '96 and Sep '93 respectively) in the 32-bit timeline. More
forgivable is the omission of the Alpha, which was released circa 1992, with
a NT4 version (I don't recall a Alpha release of 3.1) coming out around the
same time as the "normal" release IIRC (ie: Sep 96). So taking these into
account, it took 7 years for 32-bit, and about 4 years for 64-bit.
 
jacksonestonia said:
Both the G5 and the Opteron 64 bit have been out a while now, wonder if
there are any credible comparisons on performance yet? Need to populate
an office, and want to know if there are big differences.

What kind of office are you setting up that even needs 64 bit apps?

For general office use you'd be as well buying the best x86 hardware you
feel is justified, sans OS, and sticking a recent Linux distro on it. You
won't have the daily grind of virus disinfection and security updates that
Microsoft offers you and the hardware costs will be lower than Apple
offers you. The more machines in your office the more significant this
becomes.
 
Jim:

I own Macs and PCs.

Then there are the numerous updates to OS X at $129 each. (BTW OS X was
still in beta when it shipped)
compare branded stuff, the prices aren't
that different

Recently did a desktop price comparison for a client:
Dell: $2215
Apple: $4000
maybe you should consider Macs and their lower
cost of operation and longer *useful* hardware life

Often, daily administration is due to end user issues, and that would apply
to both platforms.

I have a Dell Pentium P90 (1997) that I changed the mobo for $100. That
computer current runs Win2k3 server on a Pentium 200MMX (very old CPU). It
uses the original video card.
I have a PowerMac that will not run OS X.
Guess which one has "longer *useful* hardware life"?

BTW, the Finder in OS X was not multi-threaded until Jaguar; not a very
modem op system IMO.
 
CZ said:
Jim:

I own Macs and PCs.


Then there are the numerous updates to OS X at $129 each. (BTW OS X was
still in beta when it shipped)

The original Mac OS X was marketed as a Beta. That was no secret.
There have been two major upgrades to OS X so what. You suffer through
MS security problems and what does that cost folks in time and other
things.
compare branded stuff, the prices aren't
that different

Recently did a desktop price comparison for a client:
Dell: $2215
Apple: $4000

Specs? Without them your numbers are meaningless.
maybe you should consider Macs and their lower
cost of operation and longer *useful* hardware life

Often, daily administration is due to end user issues, and that would apply
to both platforms.

Baloney. If that were the case, then Windows would be shown to be the
lowest TCO OS out. It has never been in that category.
I have a Dell Pentium P90 (1997) that I changed the mobo for $100. That
computer current runs Win2k3 server on a Pentium 200MMX (very old CPU). It
uses the original video card.
I have a PowerMac that will not run OS X.
Guess which one has "longer *useful* hardware life"?

IF your PowerMac is a G3 it will run OS X. I have it running on a 1998
Wallstreet and could run it on my 1995-6 8500 if I wanted.

As for your Dell, its your computer and not in an office environment
where more things happen. Macs typically run that long without having to
replace MB's. Cheap components in that Dell. It's what you get when they
pound down prices.
BTW, the Finder in OS X was not multi-threaded until Jaguar; not a very
modem op system IMO.

But we're not talking about pre-jaguar are we. Nice of you to bring it
up, but irrelevant.

--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while expecting that he will get nothing in return!"

Macintosh for productivity. Linux for servers. Palm/Visor for mobility. Windows to feed the Black Hole in your IT budget
 
Specs? Without them your numbers are meaningless.

I have repeatedly reported specs here. Most time the Mac has been cheaper,
though not always. Generally they are pretty close.

Here is link I found today:
http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/life/2003/11/04isapplesg5thewo.htm
l

The Mac was $4,349 the PC $5,500 - a rather sizable difference.

The article concludes with "Most routine tasks on the two computers seemed
about equal."

I would love to know how the original poster got a $5000+ PC for less than
half that price.
Baloney. If that were the case, then Windows would be shown to be the
lowest TCO OS out. It has never been in that category.

Again, I have played this game in here. All studies that show Apples better
return on investment are too old to be of any value, and all analogies are
ways to divert from the real issue. The lengths the wintrolls go to is
hilarious, but it does get old.
 
There is no contest. for approx $350, I can buy a complete athlon 2.xGhz
system with 17" monitor that will run circles around a Mac at 3 times the
price. And you can even upgrade the cpu without getting a loan.
 
There is no contest. for approx $350, I can buy a complete athlon 2.xGhz
system with 17" monitor that will run circles around a Mac at 3 times the
price. And you can even upgrade the cpu without getting a loan.

LOL... See, just mention the price wars and people start spewing silliness
like this.

The price wars are useless. Prices change too quickly, it is not possible
to get exactly equal systems when they are by nature so different, and, in
any fair comparison, they tend to be pretty close.
 
Martik said:
There is no contest. for approx $350, I can buy a complete athlon
2.xGhz system with 17" monitor that will run circles around a Mac at
3 times the price. And you can even upgrade the cpu without getting a
loan.

$350 Really?
Okay, considering the CHEAPEST 17" monitor is $70 That leaves you $280
Win XP Home OEM is around $90, that leaves you with $190
120 GIG HD( specials run around $70 after rebates), that leaves you with
$120
Athlon XP 2000+(which, technically isn't 2.xGHZ) and an ECS K7VTA3 , is $79
That leaves you with $41 to buy the ATX case, mobo and ram... hmmm... Now,
if you're going to run Linux, that's a different story. Don't get me wrong,
I've built several Athlon XP systems on shoestring budgets, but $350 is
pushing it.
 
They don't have to be exact in HW components but in overall responsiveness,
functionality and performance. Tell me specifically, with current prices,
which Mac system competes with this.
 
Jim:
This is the wrong NG for us to start a Mac vs PC contest.
True. The Apple IIgs *always* wins.


Snit:

Mac SE was better. I still boot mine to just hear that bong sound.
The original Mac was an amazing product.
 
Here is an example in CDN$ so multiply by .75 for US$
http://www.legendcomputer.ca/systems.htm
Athlon 2200 359*.75=$270US + 70 monitor = $340
Duron '2000' 269*.75=$202US " $272 (this would be enough for most home users)

Pricewatch.com has many Athlon PC systems around $250-300 with Windows XP and lifetime support.


Athlon XP 2000+(which, technically isn't 2.xGHZ) and an ECS K7VTA3 , is $79
That leaves you with $41 to buy the ATX case, mobo and ram... ..
Mobo already in the $79
 
Martik <[email protected]> said:
Here is an example in CDN$ so multiply by .75 for US$
http://www.legendcomputer.ca/systems.htm
Athlon 2200 359*.75=$270US + 70 monitor = $340
Duron '2000' 269*.75=$202US " $272 (this would be enough
for most home users)

Pricewatch.com has many Athlon PC systems around $250-300 with Windows XP and
lifetime support.
$250-$300 WITH lifetime support?

That either means crap support, or the company will be long gone in a
hurry!

Lloyd
 
CZ said:
Jim:

This is the wrong NG for us to start a Mac vs PC contest.

Then why did you try to start one?

--
Regards,
Jim Polaski
"The measure of a man is what he will do while expecting that he will get nothing in return!"

Macintosh for productivity. Linux for servers. Palm/Visor for mobility. Windows to feed the Black Hole in your IT budget

Windows-the computer you need, Macintosh-The computer you Want!ant!iÝê
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Back
Top