MacWorld Magazine Benchmarks the G5s 96
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.
I just want to say (Score:5, Funny)
MacAddict benchmarks (Score:5, Interesting)
URL for MacAddict benchmark (Score:4, Informative)
Bus speed, ddr memory path, floating point???? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Bus speed, ddr memory path, floating point???? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Bus speed, ddr memory path, floating point???? (Score:2)
Re:Bus speed, ddr memory path, floating point???? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:20X speed up on mac addict!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it shows that as soon as you start swapping, a 20x slowdown is not unexpected.
Re:Bus speed, ddr memory path, floating point???? (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:Bus speed, ddr memory path, floating point???? (Score:2)
Re:Bus speed, ddr memory path, floating point???? (Score:2)
Re:MacAddict benchmarks (Score:2)
In the context of manipulating large(ish) photoshop images, this is hardly a phenomenon restricted to the G5.
Re:MacAddict benchmarks (Score:2)
HP will be happy to sell you a Xeon workstation that can take 8GB of RAM. So will IBM for that matter. Dell can sell you a Quad Xeon machine that takes 32GB of RAM if you really need it, but it is a server.
Re:MacAddict benchmarks (Score:2)
Neither will any process be able to on current (10.2.x) or near-term (10.3) versions of OS X.
You don't have that hardware limitation on the G5.
But you do in the OS, effectively there is no difference.
Re:MacAddict benchmarks (Score:2)
Re:MacAddict benchmarks (Score:2)
The software would need an update as well.
[...] while a system with a hardware limitation is effectively obsolete.
Not really. The scenarios where a single process might need to address more than 4GB of RAM are very few (and practically nonexistant for a "personal" computer, but that's a whole other kettle of fish). The simple fact is, if a customer were really in need of such a feature either today or in the very near future, they wouldn
G4 still kickin' (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:G4 still kickin' (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:G4 still kickin' (Score:2)
Re:G4 still kickin' (Score:3, Insightful)
...and computers, too! (Score:5, Funny)
It'll be anti-climactic when real computers start shipping!
Re:...and computers, too! (Score:2)
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.
Re:...and computers, too! (Score:2)
Wll, the relevance of "64 bit" to the customers one sells "personal computers" to back when all these 64 bit machines first appeared was basically zero (only marginally less than it is now). Which explains why none of them were marketed as "personal computers" (although many of them would have fit the contemporary description at least as well as the G5 does).
So, in reality, Apple's only real claim to fame is to be the first to have
Why not ship them running at full speed? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why not ship them running at full speed? (Score:5, Interesting)
With default system settings, a G5 under moderate use is damn near silent. The noisiest thing in it is the hard drive. But the harder you work it, the louder it is.
Re:Why not ship them running at full speed? (Score:1)
Re:Why not ship them running at full speed? (Score:1)
Mixed feelings (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:1)
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:2)
That wasn't the issue.
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:2)
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:2)
I understand what you're saying, but I'm feeling pedantic.
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:2)
> 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
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:2)
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.
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:2)
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)
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Re:Apple did not invent desktop media (Score:5, Informative)
Shortly after I got my system, the iMac came up and really introduced desktop video to the masses with the iMac DV.
Back in those days, if you wanted the best computing had to offer, you needed a Mac for video, a PC for work and a Unix box for web stuff. Now you can put all those functions into a Mac and still do well.
These are happy days for Mac fans. It's not the world's most popular computer, but it's by far the best in terms of usability and fun.
D
Re:Apple did not invent desktop media (Score:2)
The underlying OS is now Unix and that is a major plus for the mac, but they still have a bloated gui. Don't mention graphics processing enhancements to the system, because t
Re:Apple did not invent desktop media (Score:2)
Re:Apple did not invent desktop media (Score:2)
Re:Apple did not invent desktop media (Score:2)
Re:Apple did not invent desktop media (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I love the MacOS X eye candy because it just looks good. I find that it makes me feel better overall, which is a very nice plus if you think about the amount of time most of us spend in front of our monitors.
My company's PowerMac G4/1.25 dual processor and my PowerBook G4/1.0ghz are both very snappy machines, I assume largely due to successful offloading of display task
Re:Apple did not invent desktop media (Score:2)
Perhaps a difference in mindset, to me beauty in design has nothing to do with graphics, it has to do with efficient functionality. Efficient functionality in the UI means intuitive, it means being able to do as much as possible with as little overhead as possible.
What you seem to be missing is the entire point of my post. The macOS GUI DOES slow
Re:Apple did not invent desktop media (Score:2)
I administrate a network of Windows machines (the one exception being the Macs and Linux systems I use for software development for the company). I notice that everyone loves the extra eye candy, whether it be a huge desktop image or things like HotBar and the like. Those things sl
Re:Apple did not invent desktop media (Score:2)
Most people with things like HotBar and the huge desktop image don't actually want them. If you explained to them that those things are why their computer runs like dogshit and are the reason for all thier problems they'll get rid of them or ask you to.
Just out of curiousity... if you administrate a network, why on earth do you allow users to install programs and things like hotbar? Don't explain to th
Re:Apple did not invent it. (Score:2)
I'll bet you don't know many, if any, people who bought Toasters who weren't in the video biz in some capacity.
D
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:2, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
What's waste? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:2)
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).
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:2)
Fact is that software (especially games) loads expand to fill the cycles alloted. Sure it's nice tha
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:2)
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
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:2)
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.
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:1)
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)
now we just have to wait for tonight's SCO update.
G5 in laptops (Score:2)
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?
Re:G5 in laptops (Score:1)
Re:G5 in laptops (Score:2)
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)
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
Re:1.6 & 1.8 single to dual processor upgrade (Score:2)
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.
Re:1.6 & 1.8 single to dual processor upgrade (Score:2)
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
Re:1.6 & 1.8 single to dual processor upgrade (Score:2)
Window Resizing (Score:1)
Re:Window Resizing (Score:2)
Re:Window Resizing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Window Resizing (Score:2)
Re:Window Resizing (Score:2)
I wonder if someone at Apple is getting the 'debug' and 'release' defines mixed up.
Optimized G4 vs. Unoptimized G5, remember ! (Score:3, Insightful)
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...