Här är en ganska intressant kommentar angående testet.
"Wow, you guys impress me every time I see one of your benchmarks. Humm lets see how a Dual CPU 2.7GHz G5 fairs against a dual core, dual CPU system..... Right, and the fact that the G5 won any of those tests should tell you something. Yet it does not seem to filter through at all. I wonder why. Then again it is only $1000 more then the tested G5 system. Not really that big a deal when you factor in its power right? Shouldn't that system win every single test? Shouldn't that Boxx run faster then anything on the planet?
Even then your benchmarks show how strong 2 G5's are compared to 4 AMD chips. Night flight bench on the G5 is pretty good considering how long it takes a 4 CPU based AMD system to do it. What's that look like, 17% faster or so? Would be nice to put up the Intel numbers in there but, never mind that. And what is that total benchmark comp 1 mean? Nice to see a "Year Old" G5 can match a brand new 4 CPU AMD system. Not to mention a overall 400MHz faster G5 beats it. While some of those AE benches show how close the G5 is to that AMD system (5 sec to 2 sec is so negligible its not even funny), while beating it in a few test, and coming very close in others. While the AMD does put up better numbers in some of the test. Its not impressing me having an extra 2 CPU's and costing a G-note more. Not to mention I have to do all that while running Windows XP. Anyone else want to point out that the G5 version of Cinebench 2003 is in BETA for OS X? Nah, f that why bother..."
