Re: Macs vs Dell, again from the AP.


-hh wrote:
Edwin wrote:
-hh wrote:
Edwin wrote:
The Dell 490 holds twice as much memory as a Mac Pro, 32 GB versus 16
GB...

Arguably a good feature if (a) your OS can support it,

The 490 comes with the chose of either 64 bit Windows or 64 bit Linix.

So is that (a) Yes, or (b) No?

You don't know?

You didn't assert.

I identified the two 64 bit operating systems supported. Why are you
so ignorant of what they can do?

"Windows XP x64 is currently limited to 128 GB (237 bytes) of physical
memory and 16 TB (244 bytes) of virtual memory."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_Professional_x64_Edition

" A recent Linux kernel (version 2.6.16) can be compiled with support
for up to 64 gigabytes of memory."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#Memory_limitationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#Memory_limitations

Ah, the citations. Much better, grasshopper.

Why do you keep calling me "grasshopper?" It implies you're some sort
of sage master, when all you have at your command is a wealth of
ignorance.

Why did you need citations? Why did you challenge memory support
when you had no idea at all how much memory either OS supports?


and (b) you have a need for it. FWIW, care to take a survey as to
how much RAM we each have installed right now?

How many of these people who you're going to survey have two or more 64
bit processors?

Ah, see that's part of the question you're dodging.

My question hit dead center of the issue. It is you who are dodging.
You would "survey" users who mostly have 32 bit computers, that are
limited to a maximum of 4 GB, as if that meant something to this
discussion.

Ah, but if a 32b computer is perfectly satisfactory for these users,
then why is there a supposed compelling need for them to pay more?

IOW, you're saying there's no need to buy a 64 bit Mac Pro.

These people are voting with their wallets.

Then they ought to be voting for $300 PCs not from Apple.

And even if the hardware is limited to 4GB, this still does not mean
that these individuals are pushing their hardware to that limit. As
such, the context is on the esoterica of a Denali vs Land Cruiser,
ignoring that most people don't need SUV's.

Okay, most people don't need the Mac Pro. I accept your reasoning.



Apple simply shoehorned in an extra pair of 64 bit processors, without
bothering to supply enough memory or memory bandwidth.

Gosh, as per the respective manufacturer's published specifications,
the maximum memory bandwidth of the two systems are 25.5 GB/sec and
21.3 GB/sec.

Respective to what?

Respective to your lack of quantifying your claims.

Then your writing is very poor indeed, as what you wrote above conveys
no such meaning, doubly so since I documented and you snipped that
documentation out.

Grasshopper, you did not document: you merely made an unsubstantiated
claim.

O Master of Ignorance, my quotes and references, which you in your
Great Ignorance snipped away, represented documentation. That
documentation substantiated my claims, Ignorant One.

It wasn't until the numbers were provided to you that you
actually went and found the citations to determine which applied to
which.

You're a bald-faced liar.


Yes, much better grasshopper.

I gave you references and quotes before. You just snipped them out
and ignored them.

Your <Sep 3 2006 11:41 am> post did contain references, but not to FSB
bandwidth. As such, they did not support your assertions, Grasshopper.

Yes they did, O Master of Ignorance.


Both claims are trying to make a mountain out of a 16% molehill.

That 16% faster is based on 533 MHz memory in the Dell. It becomes
faster when 667 MHz memory is used instead. Also, Apple's claims of
21.5 GB/sec were not honest.

Incorrect. Its peak theoretical bandwidth potential increases. The
question of what the actual bandwidth increases to should be availble
as technical specifications, but is absent, Grasshopper: there is
potential, yes, but at present, there is no proof.

The specifications are fully present, and were given to you, O Master
of Ignorance.

The Pot should be very wary of calling the Kettle black, Grasshopper.

You also possess great mastery of stupidity, O Ignorant One.



If Dell were lower, then the second part would have applied: "or are
you trying to claiming that 21.3 GB/sec is gobs, but 25.5 GB/sec is
chocked?"

You wrote it backwards.

It was written in a style that you did not expect, Grasshopper.

Your mastery of the Stupid Style leaves one in awe, O Ignorant One.


Since Apple is lower, then the first part does apply: "the difference
between gobs of bandwidth and being horribly "bandwidth-choked" is the
~16% difference between 25.5 GB/sec and 21.3 GB/sec"

Think backwards if you like, you're not going to talk me into doing
that.

Mental agility incudes the ability to leap directions other than just
forward. That is why you are still merely a Grasshopper.

While you are virtually a dual god of ignorance and stupidity.

Just keep it clear that the Apple memory is signficantly slower.

Yes, the peak bandwidth of the Apple is slower, as per their respective
published specifications. If this is significant however, is a second
question, Grasshopper.

Does the Master of Ignorance (you) believe that a slower peak bandwidth
in the Mac gives it a larger sustained bandwidth? Especially since
the peak Mac Pro bandwidth was falsely inflated?


it's not completely honest, and it's divided between four CPU cores.

Edwin, the Dell is **also** divided between its four CPU cores.

Thanks for the correction, it means the Dell is not lacking anything
the Mac has.

There are free clues on the wind for a Grasshopper to feast on. Do not
squander them.

Perhaps the Master of Ignorance (you) can explain how slower memory and
slower HDs server the four processors of the Mac beter than the four
processors of the Dell?



...being technically correct, but fundimentally wrong: bandwidth is
bandwidth, and the width of the pipe is merely a means to an end to
providing it. When you have two pipes with the same bandwidth, but one
pipe is twice as fat as the other, this simply means that its
individual packets only have to go half as fast (actually, timing) as
on the skinny one.

The pipes are not fatter on the Mac, and the Dell has twice as many
pipes.

Correct, the Mac pipes are not fatter.

Then what you wrote above was an attempt to lie about what the Mac
could do relative to the Dell.

Yet regardless of what the Dell
has, there's only a 16% difference in peak bandwidth.

If you put 533 MHz memory in the Dell and 667 MHz memory in the Mac
Pro.
The Dell is even faster with 667 MHz memory. You've been told this
several times now.

If they are
fatter (and more?), then how can this be, Grasshopper? The difference
should be much greater, but it isn't.

Because you keep comparing with 533 MHz RAM in the Dell, and 667 MHz
RAM in the Mac Pro. How many times does this have to be repeated to
you?


Here's the analogy for you:

Edwin and Zara are trying to fill up a 750 gallon swimming pool. Zara
has a 10 gallon bucket, whereas Edwin has a 100 gallon bucket. Zara
can carry his bucket from the faucet to the pool (including the time to
fill the bucket) in 10 minutes, whereas Edwin's takes 100 minutes.

Zara's bandwidth is 10gal/10min = 1 gal/min.
Edwin's bandwidth is 100gal/100min = 1 gal/min.

You created a false analogy.

In a correct analogy, Zara and I both take the same amount of time to
transport the water, but my bucket holds twice as much.

Twice as large of a bucket would result in twice the bandwidth, but
only 16% is realized. Either your bucket have a large hole in it, or
your head does, Grasshopper.

The only one with a hole in his head is you. You contrived the
figures of your false analogy to make the results you wanted.



Now let's put back what you snipped out about SAS drives:

"Serial Attached SCSI (SAS)
The latest generation of storage technology is SAS (Serial Attached
SCSI), which delivers up to 50% higher performance than SATA 10K."

Gosh, any time I see the words "UP TO", I see a weasel writing
specifications, just like USB2 versus Firewire.

As if 30%-40% faster wouldn't be significant enough...

And what then is said when "the numbers" turn out to be an absolute
performance fraud in the manifested proof of sustained throughput,
Grasshopper? Does the bull apologize for the China Shop?

You must be thinking of how Apple said the Mac Pro is "up to twice as
fast" as a G5 Mac.


Ed, what's the difference in their respective *sustained* throughput?
Hard data only, please, and this must also include what current hard
drives can actually then deliver through the pipe, for having a 4 lane
wide road doesn't speed up traffic when there's only 2 cars on the
island.

It's your idea that quad channel RAM is going to sustain less
throughput than two channel RAM?

I was referring to the SAS vs SATA drives here, but a 533Mhz "speed
limit"

Your ass must really hurt after pulling that out of it. There is no
"533 MHz speed limit." The Dell can and does use 667 MHz RAM.

may be what's analogous to the RAM's FSB interaction...more
lanes, but slower cars.

Yet another false analogy from you. It's same speed cars with more
lanes.

In any event, both SAS and SATA top out at
300MB/sec worth of bandwidth. Interesting how then either Ed or Dell
is claiming how one is somehow ...what was it again? 50% "faster"?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_device_bandwidths>

http://www.micronux.com/catalog/article_info.php?articles_id=12

"Over time, Serial ATA (SATA) for the low-end and Serial-Attached SCSI
(SAS) for the high-end will become the industry standard storage
interfaces."

SATA - Serial ATA
· Serial
· Current Speed: 150 MB/s
· Maximum Speed: 600 MB/s
· Cabling: Thin, round ribbon 4-pin 1-meter length
· Single drive per channel
· Point-to-point connection
· Full bandwidth per drive

SAS - Serial Attached SCSI
· Serial
· Current Speed: 300 MB/s
· Maximum Speed: 1200 MB/s
· Cabling: Thin, round ribbon 6-meter in length
· Up to 128 devices
· Expanders allow up to 16,000 devices


You've been schooled. You're welcome.


The Mac Pro uses SATA drives.

The Dell has RAID 5. The Mac Pro does not.

RAID 0 increases I/O speed through striping. RAID 1 is redundency
through mirroring

RAID 5 tries to incorporate both striping (for speed) with distributed
parity (for limited redundency), but it suffers from poor performance
when faced with sub-stripe sized writes because of the parity
overhead...a classic example of "TANSTAAFL".

It's an example of more choices an capabilities in the Dell than the
Mac.

Does increasing one's number of 'bad' choices a good thing,
Grasshopper?

There were better choices in the Dell, O Ignorant One.

There are many 'TANSTAAFL' aspects to RAID. For example, a RAID has
one file system, which cannot protect the data on the array because its
a single point of failure. And if it tanks, because most RAID
controllers require specific drivers, it complicates recovery. As
such, it should be thought of as a specialized tool suited for specific
assignments, not as a General Purpose 'good to have' for your typical
desktop application users and gamers. For the latter, its often a
detrement, as a RAID is not readily moved to a new system, and since
most desktop and games place performance emphasis on the buffer
strategy and seek performance of the physical disks, increasing raw
sustained transfer rate shows little gains for desktop users and
gamers, as most files that they access are typically very small anyway.
To whit:

<http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1001325&highlight=proved+ineffective>

Quad processor workstations are not for desktop users and gamers, O
Ignorant One.


How about we talk about slots? The Mac Pro has a Double-wide 16-lane
PCI Express graphics slot, and three PCI Express slots.

The Dell 490 has:

...has a mess of three different PCI protocools. No wonder it has to
have so many slots.

I see once again you were forced to snip out the Dell advantages. You
couldn't face the fact the Dell offered better slots the Mac doesn't
have.

If you want more, you pay more: TANSTAAFL.

Could you finally be GETTING IT? The Dell costs more BECAUSE IT
GIVES YOU MORE.

However, the question not
asked is if one actually needs more, and if so, what.

If the Mac has more, you MacNuts automatically take that as the
baseline, even if the Mac costs much more.

What do you need, Grasshopper?

An $850 AMD 64 x2 is just fine for me. I don't need a $2500 Mac Pro,
even though it does have quad processors.


The slots are not a "mess," btw.

Is indecision really the basis of all flexibility, Grasshopper? :-)

Who knows? There is no "indecision" involved with the Dell.


The question I would have is what kind of "plain old" PCI board would
one have to put into a mongo quad Xeon workstation that doesn't already
have a better replacement?

Is this just Dell's way of helping you to keep recycling obsolete
hardware, such that old four port USB 1.1 PCI board that you bought 10
years ago for $75? :-)

I'll assume your last two questions were rhetorical demonstrations of
stupidity.

PCI 33MHz has been depreciating since standard v2.2 was released in
1998, so its only been 8 years.

If one has such cards, one ought to be able to use them. Those aren't
the only type of slots in the Dell, and that's only one of its several
slots.

How many 8+ year old PCI cards are you aware of that are still the best
performing PCI-class card for use in a 64 bit workstation, Grasshobber?

How many PCI-X 64bit/100MHz slots with support for 3.3v or universal
cards does the Mac Pro have? None. The Dell Precision 490 has two.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Macs vs Dell, again from the AP.
    ... bothering to supply enough memory or memory bandwidth. ... Grasshopper, you did not document: ... That 16% faster is based on 533 MHz memory in the Dell. ... RAID 0 increases I/O speed through striping. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Quad Core PC for less than a Mac Mini
    ... You need proof that it's better than the Mac Mini? ... Dell system at the time. ... Mac Pro is still cheaper than the Dell in the configuration that I ... An 8G configuration of what you list sells for $6096 at the Apple Store. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Who is kidding who.
    ... Dell 5650 5.1 100 Watt Surround Sound Speaker System with Subwoofer ... Integrated Intel® PRO 10/100 Ethernet ... Try again when you learn something about FSB and cores: The Mac will ... faster than firewire, its considerably slower, in fact. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: What was that about Macs being expensive?
    ... did some price comparison, and that doesn't seem so in the case of Mac ... I note you avoided putting in a URL to the Dell, ... comes with a gig of RAM. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Those Cheap Dells...not exactly
    ... Neither the original post or the URL contained within it make any ... machine of expected price. ... Except you missed the comparison to a Mac, ... Dell Rapid Driver program for access to the latest gaming ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)