More of my sites

WinInfo Daily News
SuperSite for Windows
Windows IT Pro Magazine
Connected Home
Thurrott Dot Com
Windows Weekly at TWIT


About this site

For six years, the Internet Nexus served as my technology blog, but I've since started blogging at the SuperSite Blog instead. If you're looking for the blog, please head there. --Paul



Friday, January 13, 2006

The Mac performance shell game

Infoworld:
Apple used multiprocessor benchmarks to skew the performance advantage that its Intel-based machines enjoy compared to single-core PowerPC G4 and G5. Apple used the industry-standard SPEC suite components SPECint2000 and SPECfp2000, but here's the catch: Apple used SPECint_rate2000 and SPECfp_rate2000. Both tests spawn multiple parallel benchmark processes and are specifically intended for comparing multiprocessor systems. Single CPU, or single-core machines do positively lousy on SPEC*_rate2000 tests. That's predictable and universally understood. Add a second CPU or a second core and, as you would expect, SPEC*_rate2000 performance on any multiprocessor-optimized test skyrockets compared to a single-processor box.

Apple uses SPEC*_rate2000 tests as a foundation for claims that Intel-based Macs outperform PowerPC G4 and G5 by a factor of 2 to 5. Well, yeah. A dual-core anything outperforms a single-core anything else by a factor of 2 to 5 in benchmark tests that make use of multiple threads or processes, tests crafted specifically for the purpose of stressing SMP-based systems. It's murky marketing, and the sad part is that Apple didn't have to resort to it to make Apple's PowerPC-to-Intel switch look like a smart one. Mac users have no choice, and users also know more or less what to expect performance-wise.
What should have tipped everyone off is that the Core Duo chip is aimed at notebook computers, not desktops. In the case of the new iMac, especially, it's hard to understand how a notebook chip could do so well against a relatively high-end desktop chip, dual core or no. I'd be happy if the new iMac was simply as good as the iMac G5, from a performance perspective.

The notebooks are another story though. Apple's G4-based PowerBooks were woefully behind Intel designs from performance and battery life standpoints. It's unclear whether the new Intel-based MacBook Pro is really "faster" than the PowerBook it replaces, but it's increasingly clear that the battery life isn't great. What gives?
[ Posted at 12:17 PM | Permalink ]

 



Nexus Home | Nexus Archives | Email Paul
Copyright © 2001-2008 Paul Thurrott. All Rights Reserved.