Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Desktops (Apple) Businesses Technology (Apple) Apple Hardware Technology

MacWorld Magazine Benchmarks the G5s 96

Posted by pudge from the i-want-one dept.
La Temperanza writes "Macworld has released yet another set of benchmarks of the full line-up of G5 desktops, along with Dual 1.42GHz and single 1GHz G4s. The results are very interesting indeed, and I think I can safely say they're not biased in the G5's favor." I dunno, it should not come as too much of a shock that a dual G4 can beat a single G5 in many tests.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MacWorld Magazine Benchmarks the G5s More

MacWorld Magazine Benchmarks the G5s

Comments Filter:

  • I just want to say (Score:5, Funny)

    by skinfitz ( 564041 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @05:11PM (#6968613) Journal
    ...that it's nice that a totally independant and unbiased organisation is benchmarking the G5.

  • MacAddict benchmarks (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CarlBenda ( 645559 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @05:14PM (#6968645)
    More benchmarks are becoming available. Some like MacAddict's start to point out what a huge effect having a lot of memory means to the G5.

    • URL for MacAddict benchmark (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15, 2003 @05:17PM (#6968672)
      http://www.macaddict.com/news/news_007.html

    • Bus speed, ddr memory path, floating point???? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @06:18PM (#6969288)
      So far it looks like the benchmarks show that the difference between a g4 and a g5 is just the clock speed difference. This seems a bit wacked so I suspect the test codes are not testing the right things.

      The obvious ways this thing should be different are huge memory moves: the true independent DDR and fast bus means this thing can move a DVD's worth of data in ten seconds. The other way this should be better is that the processor should be able to have multiple floating moint commands being processed at once (in addition to altivec). neither of these are showing up in the app-based benchmarks.

      these difference should be huge and impossible to miss. something is wrong. maybe some debug codes in the new OS or the compilers are crippling the G5.

      • The g5's memory advantage won't be a big deal in this test. Each system only has 512 MB of ram. The photoshop file is only 50 MB, so I assume a larger file would cause the difference to increase. I suspect that if the benchmarks were done on much more demanding tasks, such as multi-gigabyte renders, or a lot of muti-tasking, and giving the g5 its full amount of memory, the differences would be more pronounced.
      • Um. Multimedia processing would be exactly the kind of thing that should be faster. Like iMovie. But it's not. Dunno why.

        • Re:Bus speed, ddr memory path, floating point???? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Visigothe ( 3176 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @08:55PM (#6970776) Homepage
          The "why" in this case, is actually due to the fact that most iApps are very altivec-heavy. The problem with the G5 is that its implimentation of altivec isn't as mature as the 745X series of G4 processors.


          The other thing to understand is that once the G5 becomes more mainstream, apps will be compiled for it [things like making sure both FPUs are fed, getting rid of vec_dist instructions in altivec code, etc]. As of this moment, few apps know what a G5 is, and to that end, can't run on it well.


          Also, the DV codec either doesn't use Altivec, or doesn't use the 2nd processor.. I can't remember which. I am sure this is in a TIL somewhere


          Give it time. All will be right soon enough.


          For more reading on the subject, I suggest checking out the various threads of Mac Ach. over at Ars Technica [infopop.net].


          Also, Panther shows some *serious* gains when using a G5. Expect the 10.4 to fully exploit the processor. [It has been stated by Apple that Panther/10.3 won't be "fully optimised" for the G5/64 bit]

      • 20X speed up on mac addict!!! (Score:5, Informative)

        by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @07:16PM (#6969845)
        Mac addict shows that in photoshop a G5 with 2Gigs of memory is 20x faster than one with 512MB. While more memory is better always, this probably is showing that g5 can really access is effectively.
        • Mac addict shows that in photoshop a G5 with 2Gigs of memory is 20x faster than one with 512MB. While more memory is better always, this probably is showing that g5 can really access is effectively.

          No, it shows that as soon as you start swapping, a 20x slowdown is not unexpected.

      • The obvious ways this thing [the G5] should be different are huge memory moves: [snip]...the processor should be able to have multiple floating point commands being processed at once (in addition to altivec).

        You are absolutely correct. Look at the benchmarks in this guys Navier-Stokes fluid dynamics caclulations... The 1.8 ghz G5 is more than 3 times faster than a G4 at small memory calculations and the G4 isnt even capable of being tested in the large memory calculations...

        And he isnt even testing multi
      • or maybe its just nice to see the dual 1.42 can barely keep up with the 1.6. i guess as a mac user, we'll slobber over anything faster than what we got, cuz we haven't been lacking stability and ease of use all these years. i would say that the hypertransport helps and SATA probably delivers the biggest boost, but those are just guesses :)
      • And the fact that the G5 is 64bit means you can have a DVD's worth of data in RAM. Eat this, Gelsinger ;-)
    • More benchmarks are becoming available. Some like MacAddict's start to point out what a huge effect having a lot of memory means to the G5.

      In the context of manipulating large(ish) photoshop images, this is hardly a phenomenon restricted to the G5.

  • G4 still kickin' (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mr12inch(Powerbook) ( 677185 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @05:17PM (#6968673)
    This just goes to show that, depsite the FSB bottleneck, the G4 DP still has a lot of life left in it. With the love affair of the new G5's in full force, maybe I can pick up a G4 DP dirt cheap now:)

    • Re:G4 still kickin' (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You can't. Macs never really drop to the "dirt cheap" point until they're utterly obsolete. You can still expect to pay several hundred dollars for the original 450 MHz DP G4, for instance.

  • ...and computers, too! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @05:23PM (#6968745) Journal
    Boy, we've had the squabbling over whether the G5s will be the first 64 bit this or that, benchmarks, benchmark rebuttals and counter-rebuttals, more benchmarks, still more benchmarks, nonsensical stories of Gentoo installs with performance that violates the laws of information theory...

    It'll be anti-climactic when real computers start shipping!

    • Boy, we've had the squabbling over whether the G5s will be the first 64 bit this or that [...]

      The only people squabbling have been the Mac zealots. Everyone else knows (or has taken the time to find out) 64 bit machines - "desktop", "server", "workstation" or otherwise were available long before the G5 was even someone's wet dream.

  • Why not ship them running at full speed? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rodik ( 265319 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @05:34PM (#6968854) Homepage
    One would wonder what the downside of setting the energy saver preference to 'best performance' really is. Seems odd for Apple not to be shipping the machines running at full speed if there isn't any difference when it comes to processor life, etc. Energy use can't be the issue here.

  • Mixed feelings (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rhetland ( 259464 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @05:38PM (#6968900)
    I have been reading all the G5 benchmarks with mixed feelings lately. First of all I should clarify that I am a fan of Macs, and so I am glad to see that there is any interest in the platform at all.

    However, I do most of my real computing on a home-grown linux cluster using Rocks [rocksclusters.org]. These intel machines are simply so cheap if you step slightly back from the bleeding edge, that I don't know if I could justify spending a significant amount on an equivilent Mac cluster (although I am watching V. Tech's apple cluster, just like everyone else apparently is...).

    Is there really much need for so much desktop power? How many users will utilize the full potential of a dual G5? Keep in mind that if even slashdot users can't keep two procs going, the general public has little hope.

    Of course, this will not stop me from buying one.. It's just so cool looking... I am just confessing that I realize it is wasteful...
    • Photoshop. FCP. I'm constantly pushing my dual G4 to the max, and time is money. Probably no big deal for checking email etc, but the graphics stuff can never be fast enough//

    • Re:Mixed feelings (Score:5, Insightful)

      by noewun ( 591275 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @05:51PM (#6969013) Journal
      Is there really much need for so much desktop power? How many users will utilize the full potential of a dual G5?

      Anyone who does serious work in Photoshop, After Effects, Final Cut Pro/Avid, etc. Increasing system power provides for increasing sophistication in terms of what one is able to produce, and the reach of the creative impulse will always push the envelope of available technology.

      Put another way, I can make a maxed out dual 1.42 G4 crawl in Photoshop. Give me a large enough hi-res, CMYK image with many layers and an art director who wants to try something new and the G4 will soon be sweating. I'm sure my ex-girlfriend the Avid editor can say the same thing with examples from her field. And, while I am neither a scientist or a programmer, I'm sure there are people in both fields who are salivating at the prospect of larger data sets and the ability to consider more complex calculations.

      Plus, I wanna be able to run Duke Nukem Forever.

      • Re:Mixed feelings (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Chasing Amy ( 450778 )
        > Anyone who does serious work in Photoshop, After Effects, Final Cut Pro/Avid, etc.

        Yes, but that's an extraordinarily tiny percentage of computer users. Most own a Lite version of a photo editing app that came with their scanner or digital camera, if that. And therein lies the problem. I love the MacOS, but there are good reasons the Mac as a whole has become largely a niche product. When you aim for the graphics artists, you miss the chance to gain a larger userbase. When you aim for the educatio
        • Yes, but that's an extraordinarily tiny percentage of computer users.

          That wasn't the issue.

          • It's relevent because those particular apps where the G5 Macs may show their strength are irrelevent to a vast majority of potential users. That makes it relevent to any discussion of the hardware's performance. ;-)
            • No, it doesn't. Performance has nothing to do with market share - performance is performance.

              I understand what you're saying, but I'm feeling pedantic.

              • > No, it doesn't. Performance has nothing to do with
                > market share - performance is performance.
                >
                > I understand what you're saying, but I'm feeling pedantic.

                Then I'll be pedantic enough to point out that it has everything to do with the *relevence* of the performance numbers. If machine A outperformas machine B only on in circumstances which will *not* apply to 99% of actual real-world use, and in all other circumstances has only roughly equal performance, then it has no added real-world perf
        • iMac, eMac, iBook. They're all targeted at consumer user who doesn't need the latest and greatest. I'm a Mac tech and I'm still running a beige G3 at home because all I'm doing is checking mail, surfing the web, and doing some light DTP.

          At work, on the other hand, I'll be getting a mid-range G5 as I have to at least be somewhat familiar with every software package I have to support. This includes two DV labs.
      • Plus, I wanna be able to run Duke Nukem Forever.


        By the time DNF comes out, there will be quantum computers, which would nullify the need for the latest and greatest, especially if you're a good programmer since the speed of quantum computers depend more on the software than the hardware.

    • Digital video (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CarlBenda ( 645559 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @05:53PM (#6969042)
      Two words that together will suck up all the resources of a machine. I think you'll see plenty of home users maxxing out their G5s once they start doing home videos. The market may swing back to the home users from corporations because the general home users do have a few apps that will need it.

    • Re:Mixed feelings (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      How many users will utilize the full potential of a dual G5?

      Everybody who rips CD's with iTunes, or uses iPhoto, or iMovie. In other words, pretty much everybody who owns a Mac.

      Remember, Apple essentially invented desktop media. It's taken off in the Mac world in a way that the rest of the computing world hasn't yet seen. And the tools that Apple provides for dealing with media are all multithreaded and highly optimized. They'll use every ounce of CPU power you throw at them.
    • do we really need more than 640k ?

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @06:40PM (#6969540)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • What's waste? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by daviddennis ( 10926 ) <david@amazing.com> on Monday September 15, 2003 @06:41PM (#6969561) Homepage
      If using it, or even looking at it, gives you joy, and you have the bucks, what's the harm?

      You're helping keep Apple in business, so it can make more cool things, so you can buy them. If we stop buying them, then they can't make cool things anymore :-(.

      That being said, for my purposes, anything that increases real time capacity and reduces rendering time in Final Cut is bound to pay off big-time. And, judging by the rest of the responses, most serious PowerMac users feel the same way.

      D
    • How many users will utilize the full potential of a dual G5?

      All of them. Even a G5 *still* can't resize windows smoothly (I used to consider responsibility for this a tossup between poor programming and the G4's anaemic system bus - now I'm consigning it to poor programming).

    • Ya know, 5 years ago people couldn't figure out why anyone needed a 1GHz CPU or more than 1GB of RAM in a desktop. Now that's considered an entry level machine. Of course 20 years ago there was a bozo that thought no-one needed more than 640KB of RAM. And about 40 years ago someone else thought that 5-10 computers would suffice for all the world's needs. (I'll leave the "who"s as an exercise for the reader)

      Fact is that software (especially games) loads expand to fill the cycles alloted. Sure it's nice tha
    • Is there really much need for so much desktop power?

      No. Very few people (maybe a few hardcore gamers) need a desktop that powerful. I doubt that many people need more than a 1GHz chip with 512MB or ram as a desktop.

      A lot of people, however, need a workstation that powerful (for video editing, image processing, scientific computing, ego boosting, etc). For these people no computer is fast enough. The G5 is useful to these people, since it can provide enough processing power to keep them happy for a f

    • Is there really much need for so much desktop power? How many users will utilize the full potential of a dual G5? Keep in mind that if even slashdot users can't keep two procs going, the general public has little hope.

      It's a fallacy to assume that "inexperienced" users need less power than "power users". If anything, newbies need more power to provide faster feedback. Remember that Macs come with iMovie, iDVD, etc, apps that (although consumer-friendly) still need serious processing power.
    • I work for an engineering-based consulting business. While the majority of the applications used around here do not push newer G4 machines, there are definitely applications in the 3D modeling space which require well, as much computing power as possible.

      If an engineer can do in 5 minutes what would have taken 15 minutes, that is a *big* deal. Just because *you* don't need the extra computing power doesn't mean it's not useful to someone else. Having this type of power available in an easy-to-use environme

  • whew (Score:5, Funny)

    by McAddress ( 673660 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @05:59PM (#6969100)
    that takes care of today's new G5 benchmarks.

    now we just have to wait for tonight's SCO update.

  • I know it's a little off topic, but it is sorta related. Just croos your eyes.

    Does anyone have a decent estimate for when the G5 will make it to the powerbooks? I know they have to cool them off, but how long is that likely to take?
    • I sell Apples for a well-known retailer and our best guess is roughly a year from now. To substantiate this claim, check out Mac Rumors [macrumors.com].
    • Give it a year or two. A few things have to be done first:

      a) G3s have to be phased out and replaced with G4s (the 12 inch powerbook is a step in that direction)

      b)the production bugs need to be worked out. Every new processor has it's flaws that don't show up until release and use

      c)finaly a system for cooling the processors in that small of an area needs to be designed and developed.

  • 1.6 & 1.8 single to dual processor upgrade pat (Score:3, Interesting)

    by amichalo ( 132545 ) on Monday September 15, 2003 @08:51PM (#6970737)
    For me, the major advantage of the G5 is not that it is 64 bit or that it reaches speads up to 2.0 Ghz. For me, it is that there is finally a single chip that can process at the same rate as two G4's (see benchmark results for the 1.6Ghz G5 vs 2 1.4Ghz G4s).

    This is important because there is once again - in many years - a single Apple box one may purchase and upgrade as demands increase. THAT IS as long as a single 1.6 or 1.8 Ghz G5 has the option of upgrading to a second processor (of the same clock speed of course).

    Does anyone know if this is possible or is the 2 Ghz the only configuration able to support dual G5's? (Can one purchase a single 2.0Ghz and add a proc later?)

    Radio shack: You've got questions, we've got Tandys
    • Does anyone know if this is possible or is the 2 Ghz the only configuration able to support dual G5's?

      It's not easy; the socket for the second processor is missing on the single-processor model.

      Can one purchase a single 2.0Ghz and add a proc later?

      No. This question is answered on Apple's site BTW.
    • Does anyone know if this is possible or is the 2 Ghz the only configuration able to support dual G5's? (Can one purchase a single 2.0Ghz and add a proc later?)

      Highly unlikely.

      Based on history - I don't recall Apple every offering a "dual processor capable" (at least not without third-party upgrades) machine that only shipped with one CPU - and some of the (few) pictures [mac.com] around the place that actually show the inside of the single-CPU models, there doesn't seem to be anywhere to plug an extra CPU in.

      There

      • Remember the Daystar Millennium? That thing could hold 4 processors (the fastest were 604es I believe). Imagine one of those that could hold G4s or 5s.... That was an exciting year for clones, right before Apple pulled the plug. Arguably, though, had Apple not done that, there would be no OS X or G4- and 5-based Macs. I hated them for it at the time, but it probably was the right move. Then again, I would love to see the boxes other companies would come up with if Apple licensed clones again....
  • I finally got to play with a G5 display model this evening. My biggest dissapointment with the G5, and this is coming from a casual observer, is the..latency? of window resizing. Is this just a function of RAM? I understand there alot of crunching to render the screen, but shouldn't the Radeon 9600 cruise through something like a window resize?
    • I wonder if this isn't a bug -- or at least a horribly inefficient block of code -- in the GUI. I didn't look at this on the G5 I played with but on my DP G4 this latency is horribly noticeable. It is much slower than other actions in the gui, and it doesn't seem like it should be. I recall OS 9 on much slower machines resizing windows much quicker.

    • Re:Window Resizing (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TheRaven64 ( 641858 )
      Window resizing is non-trivial. For things like spreadsheets, you could just render a larger chunk to an off-screen buffer and clip it correctly for the screen. For most apps, however, you have to calculate the positions of the widgets (which are relative to the size of the window), and then draw them. For this to appear smooth, you must do this at least 25 times per second while the user drags the size. GPU power has very little to do with it except for in special case, like resizing a video clip (whi
    • You'll also find it's mainly a jaguar thing - apparently Panther pretty much fixes it. But yeah, it's the biggest downer of the aqua interface really.
      • Trouble is, apparently 10.1 and Jaguar alpha/betas were far faster then the final releases.

        I wonder if someone at Apple is getting the 'debug' and 'release' defines mixed up.

  • Optimized G4 vs. Unoptimized G5, remember ! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by javaxman ( 705658 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @04:33PM (#6979723) Journal
    Let's not forget that these systems are running nearly identical binaries, which, while it seems fair, is not.

    The binaries are optimized for the G4. Optimization for the G5 will create quite different binaries which could run _much_ faster on the G5.

    While these tests are a great comparison for performance we'll see today, apps compiled with newer G5 optimizing compilers will push the top numbers even a bit farther, as will future OS updates. Users with G5 a year from now might look back on these numbers and wonder why they were so low...

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close