EagerDragon
Aug 25, 06:45 PM
Apple needs to address this situation appropriately. As their products gain higher profile, as their customer base increases and they gain market share, it's only logical to think that there will be a greater need for support. If nothing else, it's simple math - more Macs out there = more problems! Esepcially with how well the Intel Macs have been selling, I think Apple would be foolish to think that what was good enough a few years ago is still good enough today in terms of support.
Apple must also realize the importance of first impressions. Now more than ever new switchers are coming on board to the Intel platform, and if they have problems right off the bat and poor customer service and support, that's going to leave a sour taste in their mouth, and perhaps they may just get fed up and switch back.
Apple is so good at so many things - let's hope they ensure this is the case for their Support services as well.
Well said, I think you hit the nail on the head.
Apple must also realize the importance of first impressions. Now more than ever new switchers are coming on board to the Intel platform, and if they have problems right off the bat and poor customer service and support, that's going to leave a sour taste in their mouth, and perhaps they may just get fed up and switch back.
Apple is so good at so many things - let's hope they ensure this is the case for their Support services as well.
Well said, I think you hit the nail on the head.
Nuck81
Dec 7, 10:35 AM
Anyone know where to get a fast car? My level isn't enough for the good ones in store (only 21 atm, need 23) but all my opponents have +900hp ~700kg cars so my 840hp Lambo just doesn't cut it anymore. Have around 1.8m cash plus 40 cars so money isn't an issue but I just can't find any :(
Corvette ZR1 with Racing Mod. Tune it to max (but get the racing mod and oil change first thing) and you have a 905HP full on racing car for about 600,000cr
In setting makes sure to give it the Maximum amount of Downforce you can, and turn down the accelerator and torque in the LSD, so it's a little easier to control the power.
And Soft Slicks are a must as well.
Here is a pretty good tune (http://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=136110#post4225807) for the ZR1
Corvette ZR1 with Racing Mod. Tune it to max (but get the racing mod and oil change first thing) and you have a 905HP full on racing car for about 600,000cr
In setting makes sure to give it the Maximum amount of Downforce you can, and turn down the accelerator and torque in the LSD, so it's a little easier to control the power.
And Soft Slicks are a must as well.
Here is a pretty good tune (http://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=136110#post4225807) for the ZR1
Amazing Iceman
Apr 7, 10:49 PM
Weird... I think there's more involved in this than we can imagine.
One thing that comes to my mind is the possibility they were holding their stock to sell it outside the country, as there's been a high demand and higher value to sell overseas.
Or... a competitor made an arrangement with Be$t Buy to sell a minimum quota a day (well... very odd, but possible) for who knows what reason.
It's a strange concept on BB's part, but if I had a store I would sell all my stock if there's a demand for it. If I hold off, my customers would be driven away to a competitor and I would loose both present and future sales.
One thing that comes to my mind is the possibility they were holding their stock to sell it outside the country, as there's been a high demand and higher value to sell overseas.
Or... a competitor made an arrangement with Be$t Buy to sell a minimum quota a day (well... very odd, but possible) for who knows what reason.
It's a strange concept on BB's part, but if I had a store I would sell all my stock if there's a demand for it. If I hold off, my customers would be driven away to a competitor and I would loose both present and future sales.
shamino
Jul 20, 09:32 AM
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.
Actually, this is well documented.
There are serious electrical and physical problems with jacking up clock speeds much further than they are now. Intel managed to push their chips to 3.4GHz, but the power consumed was tremendous.
When you can't ramp up the clock speed, your next best alternative is to go for as much parallelism as you can - increase the number of instructions you can execute in a single clock.
Chip makers achieve this in a wide variety of ways, including multiple CPU packages on a motherboard, multiple cores per CPU package, multiple threads per core, and multiple functional units per thread.
And yes, a single CPU at 3GHz can easily consume more power than two CPUs (or two cores) at 1.5GHz.
As for your theoretical 24GHz processor, such a thing is simply not possible with today's technology. (Well, there were some university experiments that hit insanely fast speeds, but don't expect commercial products any time soon.) Given the heat/power curves of today's chips, I wouldn't want to think about the cooling requirements of a 24GHz chip if you could somehow manage to build one.
Of course, breakthroughs do happen, and higher clock speeds might become practical in the future. But multi-core tech isn't going away - we'll simply end up with multiple cores at higher clock speeds.
Actually, this is well documented.
There are serious electrical and physical problems with jacking up clock speeds much further than they are now. Intel managed to push their chips to 3.4GHz, but the power consumed was tremendous.
When you can't ramp up the clock speed, your next best alternative is to go for as much parallelism as you can - increase the number of instructions you can execute in a single clock.
Chip makers achieve this in a wide variety of ways, including multiple CPU packages on a motherboard, multiple cores per CPU package, multiple threads per core, and multiple functional units per thread.
And yes, a single CPU at 3GHz can easily consume more power than two CPUs (or two cores) at 1.5GHz.
As for your theoretical 24GHz processor, such a thing is simply not possible with today's technology. (Well, there were some university experiments that hit insanely fast speeds, but don't expect commercial products any time soon.) Given the heat/power curves of today's chips, I wouldn't want to think about the cooling requirements of a 24GHz chip if you could somehow manage to build one.
Of course, breakthroughs do happen, and higher clock speeds might become practical in the future. But multi-core tech isn't going away - we'll simply end up with multiple cores at higher clock speeds.
NJRonbo
Jun 12, 12:29 PM
Another potential problem...
How many iPhone 4s is Radio Shack going to
have in stock on first day of sale?
It's not like they are the Apple or AT&T store.
If I could be assured of a phone on day one
from Radio Shack the deal would be a pretty
good one.
How many iPhone 4s is Radio Shack going to
have in stock on first day of sale?
It's not like they are the Apple or AT&T store.
If I could be assured of a phone on day one
from Radio Shack the deal would be a pretty
good one.
wpotere
Apr 27, 09:49 AM
Did he release a different form of the document today?
To catch you up... There are two versions of the form, the long and short. The long form is the one that you are used to seeing and the short is an abbreviated version that is just a as legal. Many states are using the short now including Hawaii. If he is holding a clearance (which he is), he will have had a background check and these documents would have been submitted. Basically he was cleared with no problems. This is just people raising hell of something stupid.
To catch you up... There are two versions of the form, the long and short. The long form is the one that you are used to seeing and the short is an abbreviated version that is just a as legal. Many states are using the short now including Hawaii. If he is holding a clearance (which he is), he will have had a background check and these documents would have been submitted. Basically he was cleared with no problems. This is just people raising hell of something stupid.
axual
Apr 7, 10:54 PM
I had called BB multiple times (6 times over two weeks), each time resulting in the answer that they were sold out. They had a reservation list however.
So, I walked into Best Buy just to look at the iPad 2. As I was discussing this, the BB rep said they had one which had been returned that was up at Customer Service desk. After checking, the Manager got involved because they wanted to make sure the SIM card had not been activated.
At the same time, unbeknownst to my discussion, some guy who had called earlier was told by the Customer Service desk a returned unit was there and he could have it. When I went up with the manager to check it, the other guy was there and expecting the returned unit to purchase.
So bottom line, I actually ended up not with the returned unit, but with a brand new iPad after the manager who didn't really want to deal with the other guy, said he had a new one because that the 48 hour window for a reservation holder had expired.
So my take: BB probably had more iPads than they said they did. I also wonder if the 48 hour reservation hold window was something Apple was aware of.
So, I walked into Best Buy just to look at the iPad 2. As I was discussing this, the BB rep said they had one which had been returned that was up at Customer Service desk. After checking, the Manager got involved because they wanted to make sure the SIM card had not been activated.
At the same time, unbeknownst to my discussion, some guy who had called earlier was told by the Customer Service desk a returned unit was there and he could have it. When I went up with the manager to check it, the other guy was there and expecting the returned unit to purchase.
So bottom line, I actually ended up not with the returned unit, but with a brand new iPad after the manager who didn't really want to deal with the other guy, said he had a new one because that the 48 hour window for a reservation holder had expired.
So my take: BB probably had more iPads than they said they did. I also wonder if the 48 hour reservation hold window was something Apple was aware of.
aegisdesign
Sep 13, 11:40 AM
Most people run more than one app at once.
Yes, that's true.
It's also true that most of the time, most people aren't even maxing out ONE core never mind eight.
And when they do, their program won't get any faster unless it's multithreaded and able to run on multiple cores at once.
Yes, that's true.
It's also true that most of the time, most people aren't even maxing out ONE core never mind eight.
And when they do, their program won't get any faster unless it's multithreaded and able to run on multiple cores at once.
sierra oscar
Sep 19, 09:19 AM
AMEN!!!! This whole thread has the tone of a spoiled 13 year old's "I want" tirade. All the benchmarks show little difference between Merom and what you can buy today...and the 64 bit argument is really moot for most users because....(ready for it)....it's a laptop! Very few will have more than 2GB RAM on it anyway, and addressing larger RAM partitions is the #1 64 bit advantage.
That whole comment had the tone of a spoilt 13 year old...
You have no idea why some ppl are waiting for the next revision or upgrade - don't benchmark your rationale with others in way that dismisses other ppl who have equally legitimate reasons and opinions...
Some ppl (who don't have allot of money to drop every year for the next best thing) have to spend wisely - and perhaps just want a revB machine that is more stable and refined. I for one keep my macs until they die...so I will be waiting for revB to maximise my chances of a solid bug-free machine.
If that makes me spoilt - b/c I don't want to purchase new products year after year - then there is nothing I can do about your perceptions...
That whole comment had the tone of a spoilt 13 year old...
You have no idea why some ppl are waiting for the next revision or upgrade - don't benchmark your rationale with others in way that dismisses other ppl who have equally legitimate reasons and opinions...
Some ppl (who don't have allot of money to drop every year for the next best thing) have to spend wisely - and perhaps just want a revB machine that is more stable and refined. I for one keep my macs until they die...so I will be waiting for revB to maximise my chances of a solid bug-free machine.
If that makes me spoilt - b/c I don't want to purchase new products year after year - then there is nothing I can do about your perceptions...
Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 12:48 PM
Though, for what it's worth, I'd much rather we returned to the constitutional practice of getting approval from congress before committing ourselves to military intervention.
I agree with the sentiment, though I wonder how much difference it would make - Bush managed to lie, cheat and steal a vote out of congress in favor of the Iraq invasion. Plenty of congress members were either duped or cowed into voting in favor. It wasn't a declared war, it was even better - he had congressional sanction without being restrained by a declared war.
I agree with the sentiment, though I wonder how much difference it would make - Bush managed to lie, cheat and steal a vote out of congress in favor of the Iraq invasion. Plenty of congress members were either duped or cowed into voting in favor. It wasn't a declared war, it was even better - he had congressional sanction without being restrained by a declared war.
Cinch
Aug 27, 02:39 PM
That doesn't make sense, marketing wise. If they do anything to the MacBooks and iMacs they would at least bump their speeds. It doesn't matter f the 2GHz Merom chip is faster than the 2GHz Yonah chip, the consumers don't give a crap about the chip... they want to see "them GHz numbers" go up.
The consequence is a laptop with a power cord attach to them feeding the insatiable appetite of the thermo nuclear reactor we call the CPU. For the love of reason and common sense, why can't Apple make a laptop with a day worth of battery powered. How about OLED display and multicore chip running at much lower frequency. Enough with the Ghz BS; what is the different between a 2.16Ghz and a 2.33 Ghz processors again?
Cinch
The consequence is a laptop with a power cord attach to them feeding the insatiable appetite of the thermo nuclear reactor we call the CPU. For the love of reason and common sense, why can't Apple make a laptop with a day worth of battery powered. How about OLED display and multicore chip running at much lower frequency. Enough with the Ghz BS; what is the different between a 2.16Ghz and a 2.33 Ghz processors again?
Cinch
Ktulu
Aug 25, 08:23 PM
Apple always made the Pismo. I don't know the exact years but it was a black G3 PowerBook.
That's right. thank you I completely forgot about that.:D
That's right. thank you I completely forgot about that.:D
gnasher729
Jul 14, 05:20 PM
A 2.66 Ghz Woodcrest will probably be faster than a 2.93Ghz Conroe. A 1.83Ghz Yonah is faster than a 3.2Ghz Pentium, right?;)
Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest all use Intel's new "Core Microarchitecture" (a bit confusing: Core Duo does _not_ use "Core Microarchitecture", it is basically an improved Pentium III. The Core 2 Duo chips use Core Microarchitecture).
All three chips produce the same performance at the same clockspeed. Cache size may make a difference, but the Conroe models starting at 2.4 GHz all have the large 4 MB cache. So a single 2.66 GHz Woodcrest will be substantially slower than a 2.93 GHz Conroe. Not that it matters; the 2.93 GHz Conroe is extremely overpriced and unlikely to be used in any Macintosh.
I personally would expect 2.0GHz Conroe, 2.66 GHz Conroe, 2 x 2 GHz Woodcrest and 2 x 2.66 GHz Woodcrest for a wide range from cheap to maximum performance.
Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest all use Intel's new "Core Microarchitecture" (a bit confusing: Core Duo does _not_ use "Core Microarchitecture", it is basically an improved Pentium III. The Core 2 Duo chips use Core Microarchitecture).
All three chips produce the same performance at the same clockspeed. Cache size may make a difference, but the Conroe models starting at 2.4 GHz all have the large 4 MB cache. So a single 2.66 GHz Woodcrest will be substantially slower than a 2.93 GHz Conroe. Not that it matters; the 2.93 GHz Conroe is extremely overpriced and unlikely to be used in any Macintosh.
I personally would expect 2.0GHz Conroe, 2.66 GHz Conroe, 2 x 2 GHz Woodcrest and 2 x 2.66 GHz Woodcrest for a wide range from cheap to maximum performance.
TripHop
Jun 10, 05:55 PM
Gazelle (http://www.gazelle.com/) buys old iPhones too. :)
zelet
Aug 25, 02:46 PM
dotMac support is horrible! There have been a ton of problems with their email service being labeled as a spam source lately. They aren't fixing the problem and there is no way of contacting support besides some worthless email form that only gets you canned responses in reply. They have no phone support either.
So, for a $100 a year service you get a blacklisted email address and no support. Yay for Apple!
So, for a $100 a year service you get a blacklisted email address and no support. Yay for Apple!
Matthew Yohe
Apr 7, 10:41 PM
I don't know what to believe.
Not Best Buy.
Not Best Buy.
HecubusPro
Aug 27, 06:55 PM
+BT Mighty Mouse (x2)
BT Keyboard
Some sort of bag for the MBP
D-Link USB Bluetooth drive
*Crosses fingers*
I just bought this today at my local Apple Store in anticipation of receiving my new 2.33mhz MBP 17".
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/2.RSLID?mco=B8F3B1F4&nplm=TH469LL%2FA
I'm a 36 year old man and I still use backpacks instead of briefcases. :cool: When will I ever grow up? :)
BT Keyboard
Some sort of bag for the MBP
D-Link USB Bluetooth drive
*Crosses fingers*
I just bought this today at my local Apple Store in anticipation of receiving my new 2.33mhz MBP 17".
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/2.RSLID?mco=B8F3B1F4&nplm=TH469LL%2FA
I'm a 36 year old man and I still use backpacks instead of briefcases. :cool: When will I ever grow up? :)
jmgregory1
Mar 22, 04:01 PM
I can assure that doubling the 256MB of the first iPad is not enough for people that need a lot of multitask, like me.
I don't need to own an iPad 2.
The competitors have 1GB RAM, iPad 2 has 512MB.
It's simple: Apple is always behind hardware-wise because they like to priorize esthetics and appearance (besides the "so wonderful OS" ad). It's been this way for Macs, it seems to be the same way for iPads.
Android phones are selling more than iPhone.
iPhone has started a market, competitors are improving it.
iPad has started a market, competitors are improving it.
If you just can't recognize how multitask works better with 1GB RAM and true background apps (QNX, Honeycomb), then you deserve to use a limited thing like an iPad.
I've only bought the first iPad because there were no competitors at that time (and I hate netbooks), but now things are different. To be honest, A LOT different.
People said that the iPhone was going to be the best phone out there, but the market is showing something different.
People say the iPad is the best tablet out there, but it seems that the market is going to show something different.
There are 2 sides: Apple fanboys and realistic people.
I like products, not brands.
This is a simple look at a complex process. Adding more ram may be good in a system that doesn't control app usage well, but it's something completely different when the system can control for app processes. If you have a product that works perfectly well with a certain spec, is there a need to add more of a certain thing? What benefit does it offer? Apple is a smart company - why build more cost into hardware if you can make your software make up any potential shortcomings in hardware?
Of course the competition has to market its products as being different in some way compared to Apple and convince you, the buying public, that it means something to have double this or less of that.
Frankly, I think these companies should be trying to come up with the next thing - instead of just trying to compete against the iPad - but they won't do that. They'll wait until Apple releases the next new thing and just copy that. It's pitiful really.
I don't need to own an iPad 2.
The competitors have 1GB RAM, iPad 2 has 512MB.
It's simple: Apple is always behind hardware-wise because they like to priorize esthetics and appearance (besides the "so wonderful OS" ad). It's been this way for Macs, it seems to be the same way for iPads.
Android phones are selling more than iPhone.
iPhone has started a market, competitors are improving it.
iPad has started a market, competitors are improving it.
If you just can't recognize how multitask works better with 1GB RAM and true background apps (QNX, Honeycomb), then you deserve to use a limited thing like an iPad.
I've only bought the first iPad because there were no competitors at that time (and I hate netbooks), but now things are different. To be honest, A LOT different.
People said that the iPhone was going to be the best phone out there, but the market is showing something different.
People say the iPad is the best tablet out there, but it seems that the market is going to show something different.
There are 2 sides: Apple fanboys and realistic people.
I like products, not brands.
This is a simple look at a complex process. Adding more ram may be good in a system that doesn't control app usage well, but it's something completely different when the system can control for app processes. If you have a product that works perfectly well with a certain spec, is there a need to add more of a certain thing? What benefit does it offer? Apple is a smart company - why build more cost into hardware if you can make your software make up any potential shortcomings in hardware?
Of course the competition has to market its products as being different in some way compared to Apple and convince you, the buying public, that it means something to have double this or less of that.
Frankly, I think these companies should be trying to come up with the next thing - instead of just trying to compete against the iPad - but they won't do that. They'll wait until Apple releases the next new thing and just copy that. It's pitiful really.
SevenInchScrew
Aug 19, 12:05 AM
I hate how some people think the ~800 standard cars are going to look like GT4 cars.
They won't just look like it, they ARE GT4 cars. Take note that NONE of the cars that are playable at these events or seen in almost all screen shots are Standard� cars. I'm not "hating" on the game. I just question their decisions. As I said in my previous posts, I'm a very LONG time fan of the GT series. But, I'm getting tired of the repeated cycle I continuously go through with them lately. Super hype for the games before they come out, and then, regardless of exponentially greater feature list, I'm let down by the actual driving.
Again, I'm glad this game looks spectacular, because it really does. Even though the screen shots that we're seeing are from Photo Mode, the ones that have come out at GC10 are amazing. It is also practically bewildering how the game now has a feature list that is so huge and loaded with features, if you didn't hear it from Polyphony themselves, you might not believe it. But, like I said, the more stuff that keeps getting added to the game, and more minutiae they detail in the Premium� cars, the more my expectations of the actual driving in the game rises.
They won't just look like it, they ARE GT4 cars. Take note that NONE of the cars that are playable at these events or seen in almost all screen shots are Standard� cars. I'm not "hating" on the game. I just question their decisions. As I said in my previous posts, I'm a very LONG time fan of the GT series. But, I'm getting tired of the repeated cycle I continuously go through with them lately. Super hype for the games before they come out, and then, regardless of exponentially greater feature list, I'm let down by the actual driving.
Again, I'm glad this game looks spectacular, because it really does. Even though the screen shots that we're seeing are from Photo Mode, the ones that have come out at GC10 are amazing. It is also practically bewildering how the game now has a feature list that is so huge and loaded with features, if you didn't hear it from Polyphony themselves, you might not believe it. But, like I said, the more stuff that keeps getting added to the game, and more minutiae they detail in the Premium� cars, the more my expectations of the actual driving in the game rises.
Chip NoVaMac
Apr 7, 11:38 PM
After reading more of the responses working retail I might be able to shed on some light as to why BB might hold back on selling what they have on hand.
As one poster mentioned BB store managers have a quota or sales goal to make each day it seems. The sad fact is that when hot products enter the market they can skew your sales data for that day, week, or month. So taking and throttling sales to make ones sales goal can help out the following year.
Sadly sometimes you get corporate HQ that is just focused in on gains over LY, never mind that hot product that was blowing off the shelves was the reason for it. In particular for a publicly traded company that has shareholders to answer to.
As an example; lets say the local BB store got a 100 iPad 2 64GB 3G's in this morning. That is about $83K in sales. And lets say they average sales without the iPad 2 for the same day LY was $500K. Next year that manager would be looking at needing a $583K to make his goal.
Bean counters at the corporate level don't care one red cent about any hot item that caused the spike. Nor do shareholders of public companies. I personally have seen in the past when the store I worked for made it goal for the day, hold back on processing an order till the next day to give us a jump on the next days sales. But NEVER to the point that customers with money in hand were denied buying the product right then and there.
And that is where I think BB is getting in trouble with Apple right now....
As one poster mentioned BB store managers have a quota or sales goal to make each day it seems. The sad fact is that when hot products enter the market they can skew your sales data for that day, week, or month. So taking and throttling sales to make ones sales goal can help out the following year.
Sadly sometimes you get corporate HQ that is just focused in on gains over LY, never mind that hot product that was blowing off the shelves was the reason for it. In particular for a publicly traded company that has shareholders to answer to.
As an example; lets say the local BB store got a 100 iPad 2 64GB 3G's in this morning. That is about $83K in sales. And lets say they average sales without the iPad 2 for the same day LY was $500K. Next year that manager would be looking at needing a $583K to make his goal.
Bean counters at the corporate level don't care one red cent about any hot item that caused the spike. Nor do shareholders of public companies. I personally have seen in the past when the store I worked for made it goal for the day, hold back on processing an order till the next day to give us a jump on the next days sales. But NEVER to the point that customers with money in hand were denied buying the product right then and there.
And that is where I think BB is getting in trouble with Apple right now....
BornAgainMac
Aug 17, 09:19 AM
Won't Adobe use Core Image when the Universal Binaries come out? If both Quads had the same high powered graphics card, the benchmarks may show them to be the same with Core Image tasks.
BlizzardBomb
Aug 27, 09:49 AM
Well for one thing, Apple doesn't pay street prices. iMacs will only have 2 cores until Kentsfield. So I think it's fair to expct aggressive Conroe speed in the iMac due to the 2 core limitation. iMacs need to be about the same speed as Mac Pros because they only have 2 cores.
All pricing of chips are quoted in bulks of 1000s. And does it matter whether its street pricing or not because Apple still has to fork out an extra 30% for the CPU (+ logic board redesign costs).
All pricing of chips are quoted in bulks of 1000s. And does it matter whether its street pricing or not because Apple still has to fork out an extra 30% for the CPU (+ logic board redesign costs).
NAG
Mar 31, 03:39 PM
What the heck is this? The "Steve was right" month?
Pathetic Dell and HP, desperate Microsoft, Samsung aka Mr. "Smoothbastic", Google inhibiting fragmentation, the very one, which does NOT exist, really...
who is next? Oh, i have got it - Adobe. So come on, resistance is futile.
Adobe showing how the iPad is only for consumption and not worth their time. (http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/03/30/adobe.photoshop.for.ipad.to.get.layers/)
Pathetic Dell and HP, desperate Microsoft, Samsung aka Mr. "Smoothbastic", Google inhibiting fragmentation, the very one, which does NOT exist, really...
who is next? Oh, i have got it - Adobe. So come on, resistance is futile.
Adobe showing how the iPad is only for consumption and not worth their time. (http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/03/30/adobe.photoshop.for.ipad.to.get.layers/)
elmimmo
Aug 17, 04:09 AM
It's frustrating to see all the work that anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=10) went through to make the benchmarks, for such a ****** comparison they decided to do in the first place.
They are comparing a 2 generations old G5 (Dual 2,5) versus a new Intel (Quad 2,6) which is not even the fastest out there. What kind of comparison is that? If the new Intels you are comparing against are all Quad based, the only reasonable G5 to compare against is the fastest one out there, the Quad G5 @2,5, because it is the fastest, and because it is even at core count. And they do not even mention it exists. And since you take the trouble to do so, compare fastest G5 against fastes Intel, gosh.
They could as well have compared any Mac Pro against an iMac DV�
They are comparing a 2 generations old G5 (Dual 2,5) versus a new Intel (Quad 2,6) which is not even the fastest out there. What kind of comparison is that? If the new Intels you are comparing against are all Quad based, the only reasonable G5 to compare against is the fastest one out there, the Quad G5 @2,5, because it is the fastest, and because it is even at core count. And they do not even mention it exists. And since you take the trouble to do so, compare fastest G5 against fastes Intel, gosh.
They could as well have compared any Mac Pro against an iMac DV�