PC Mag Compares G5 to Xeon 196
zpok writes "PC Magazine did a comparison between a dual 2.0-GHz Power Mac G5 and an equally expensive Dell Precision 650 Workstation running dual 3.06-GHz Xeon processors. Their conclusion: 'we see that indeed the G5 is generally as fast as the best Intel-based workstations currently available.' But of course 'our cousin Ned can build you a better'un at half the dough.'"
objectivity (Score:5, Informative)
as you can see, the Dell is $835 more. now, let's try and be objective, something PCMAG disavowed in their introduction saying they took Apple's claims about the speed of the G5 "with a grain of salt". in other words, the test was designed to debunk Apple, thus throwing objectivity out the window.
IF we were to buy the RAM by a third party, drop the 56k modem on the G5, and leave the default video card (which is still better than the Dell), the system would cost $3188 (RAM is DDR400, 512mb+1gb on pricewatch). The Dell would cost $4057 (again, with RAM from pricewatch). That would make it $869 more.
On top of that, PCMAG admits to not taking into account a certain loading time (for controls
so if anything should be taken with a grain of salt, it's PCMAG.
Re:objectivity (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:objectivity (Score:5, Informative)
Re:objectivity (Score:2)
Nah, cut them a little slack on this one: it's perfectly valid to take a position as your null hypothesis -- in this case, that Macs are always slower than PCs -- and them come up with a suite of tests that atte
Re:Mac Trolls (Score:5, Funny)
Objectivity here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Objectivity, wherefor art thou?
Re:Objectivity here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right here.
Both the Power Mac and the Dell are decent computers. Neither one is fast in any absolute sense, but both are faster than they need to be for average users. The Dell has more configuration options, but the Mac is far better designed.
If you are in the market for a desktop computer as fast as these, you won't make your decision based on which one squeaks out the other in some test.
These sorts of "shoot-outs" are a colossal waste of time and effort.
Re:Objectivity here? (Score:2, Informative)
Why is objectivity important? What an odd question. Objective measurements of consumer goods makes it easier to understand substitute products and to determine if you're getting a good price for what you bought.
Oh, you meant, "where are the objective standards?", not "why are there objective standards?" As we all know, "wherefore art thou" isn't a fancy way of saying, "where are you?" It means, "why are you?" or "what purpose are you?"
I'm just glad the word "whither" h
Re:Objectivity here? (Score:2)
Personally, I like using the Shakespearean "die" when I'm in mixed company. (As in "I would live in your heart, die in your lap, and be buried in your eyes.")
Since nobody gets it, I'm far less likely to be slapped in the face than if I say what I mean in modern English. :)
Re:Objectivity here? (Score:2)
"Lord, what fools these mortals be!"
Re:Objectivity here? (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.spec.org
note that Apple don't have any results there yet. One should compare SPEC-sanctioned results with SPEC-sanctioned results.
Shakespeare... (Score:2, Informative)
Juliet was basically saying "Why art thou Romeo" (as in why is he from a rival family) rather than asking where he is that that moment.
Therefore, you are asking Objectivity why it is what it is
I'm such a prick (Score:2)
preach on, good brother, preach on (Score:5, Insightful)
I know you hate all the hype and think they are overhyped, etc. Well believe the hype, and then some
-yet another satisfied mac user
mod parent down (Score:1, Troll)
I'm not saying the Mac is slower or trash - it looks like its the winner so far, but geez, why does Mac vs. PC have to be such personal debate?
Re:mod parent down (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, the parent post was simply expressing his opinion. He thinks that eskimo232's post does not deserve to be modded as "insightful". And he has a right to think differently. He even acknowledged that "[the Mac] looks like a winner so far".
If moderators don't agree with him, that's OK, leave him alone. But modding him as a Troll is unacceptable, an
Re:preach on, good brother, preach on (Score:5, Informative)
Re:preach on, good brother, preach on (Score:2)
Give me a 1 GHz G4 with a 40 GB drive, a modest video card and 128 MB of RAM, bundle it with a 15" flat panel monitor, OS X and AppleWorks, price it for $500, and get outta my way. If Dell and Gateway can do it, why can't Appl
Re:preach on, good brother, preach on (Score:2)
Believe it or not.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Keep in mind, as well, that 10.3 is not up to release version yet. The G5 is running on incomplete software, and, at almost $900 less, still outperforms the Xeon, even with the questionable objectivity of the study. I think it says a lot that a magazine aiming to trash Apple and claim the superiority of PCs is unable to get more than a tie with their unfair methods.
Re:Believe it or not.... (Score:5, Informative)
They argued PC's should have run an optimized compiler, as the G5 should have. That way you'd have a subjective but real world benchmark. Because that's the thing most people would do with a machine like that, when programming. Only makes sense.
What Apple showed with that benchmark was that the G5 was faster at a bunch of tasks people wouldn't necessarily want to perform under that set of circumstances.
I personally only started drooling after that. When Stevie Wonder showed Photoshop, Mathematica, Logic/Cubase, rendering and FCP stuff. That's what this beast is made for, that's why you'd buy a G5 instead of a Dell. Not only good soft, but screaming hardware... etc etc
And that's why this PC Mag article is for most people more interesting than two high-end machines running an open source all-purpose compiler.
Apart from that it shows the G5 in a decent light to a mostly PC audience. Could have been worse.
Disclaimer: if I were Apple I would have done the same thing. It might not excite me personally, but it did show the G5 advantage in a levelled field, set up by the best and most impartial people they could have hired.
Re:Of course they are (Score:1, Interesting)
I am pretty sure that you have to (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I am pretty sure that you have to (Score:1)
Re:I am pretty sure that you have to (Score:2)
Re:I am pretty sure that you have to (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes, but (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Yes, but (Score:2)
That is good review from a hostile source. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't tend to follow benchmarks I use what seems like it is good for me, A difference in milliseconds doesn't effect me that much because normally I cannot type that fast.
Why only compare top of the line systems? (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be far more interesting to see what you can get for different amounts of money. E.g. What is the price / performance for a system for $900, $1000, $2000 and so on. This is where I believe Apple will have a hard time keeping up with Intel based products.
Re:Why only compare top of the line systems? (Score:2)
One wrong argument to defend Apple computers is to say that you have a good reselling price for a 2 year system, compared to a 2 year PC system. It is partially true: Macs have better mechanical components (fans and stuff) that degrade with time, so you can have a good system for 4 years or more.
But what is happening now on the used Apple marketplace is just casual: the G
By the numbers, the Mac beat the PC (Score:2)
speed no longer matters (Score:5, Insightful)
Sending e-mail, writing reports, editing web pages, and 98% of what we do as software developers can be done with equal speed on a dual-processor G5, a G4-based iMac, or a G3-based iBook. Same goes for the Wintel world. Speed matters a little more if you're crunching a truly huge spreadsheet or running a filter on a large digital image. And speed really starts to count when you're editting video or running a large simulation. But most people don't run large simulations or edit video most of the time.
Those that do a lot of video editting, etc., generally do it for a living, and the speed improvements are so important that the price differential usually isn't a problem. Time is money and all that.
Re:speed no longer matters (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:speed no longer matters (Score:5, Funny)
Re:speed no longer matters (Score:2)
Of course, systems also provide far more formatting capabilities, and have much better displays, which consumes disk space and C
Re:speed no longer matters (Score:2)
Re:speed no longer matters (Score:5, Informative)
Many people do lots of video editing or 3D, or use virtual instruments & effects to do music. We can use every last bit of power we have- every day. Plus we're cranky and outspoken...
Re:speed no longer matters (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm in the final stages of production on a CD, and I'm drooling over the Dual G5 because my current G4 system was so inadequate that I had to borrow a faster one just to get through this project. I'm not even using a lot of effects, it's just that the few I am using suck lots of processor power.
The problem is that even for ordinary users, as soon as processor power improves, some company comes along with a new version of some piece of software, some new plug-in, some new video codec, whatever, that requires more horsepower to work reliably.
Marketing features are the great curse of processor performance....
Re:speed no longer matters (Score:2, Insightful)
Now that they are comparable in power to WinTel, speed doesn't matter????
Look if you take away the price and speed advantage of WinTel, you're left with a bunch of annoying crap!
I'll take OS X on a 500MHz iMac over Linux or Windows any day..
Re:speed no longer matters (Score:1)
Ah, you've mistaken me for a PC zealot. I'm actually a Mac zealot who's just sick and tired of hearing people blather on about whether this machine or that one is a few miniflops faster than the other. Now that Macs are comparable to the fastest Wintel machines in speed, they're still better (IMO) mainly due to the superior OS. I'd also take an 500 MHz iMac over a 3 GHz Dell running Windows any day.
Re:speed no longer matters (Score:2, Insightful)
The amount of memory is pretty much the only hardware factor that effects how many "memory-hogging" apps you can have open comfortably. So a 500MHz iMac would do just fine given enough memory.
Re:speed no longer matters (Score:2, Interesting)
Err, speak for yourself. (Score:2)
Speak for yourself. I have done software development on my Dual G4, my 800mhz iBook, and my friends shiny new G5 for an afternoon. IDEs are ever-increasing in complexity and responsibility. Apple's new XCode and VC++ have for a long time done many, many things that require quite a lot of lookups, analysis, and parse tree building.
Sorry, these things create stutters, slowdown
Speed will always matter. (Score:2)
It always turns out to be pretty shortsighted. Yes, an average new computer is overkill for most users the day it's purchased. Software is targetted at the average computer in use, new computers tend to be faster than the average, so new computers are always overkill. This is so definitional as to border on tautology.
But software continu
icon update needed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:icon update needed (Score:3, Funny)
Slashdot's still waiting for the initial shipment from apple. Should be any day now.
My favorite quote from the article (Score:5, Funny)
Hell, the G5 did better than PC Mag said it did (Score:5, Interesting)
Another insight was that one of the oft-criticized older Mac G4s beat the Xeon in one test (two if you factor in the controls issue), nearly tied it in another, and wasn't so far behind in two more. Heh.
Re:Hell, the G5 did better than PC Mag said it did (Score:5, Interesting)
I took all the times for all the tests and got the percentage improvement (it is a negative number if it is slower) over the Xenon. Then I took an average of all the test and I got that on the average the G5 is 15.7122479017% faster then the Xenon. which is not truly a neck & neck race there. I would say if it was less then 5% difference but 15% seems like a good margin. And right now I don't feel like pulling my statistics book from college to check to make sure that this is a statically significant advantage over the Xenon. In case you do their are 6 Data Points with the following values points
[11.578947368421053, 44.270833333333329, -21.374045801526716, -2.4911032028469751, 38.549618320610683, 23.739237392373923]
Have a blast.
Re:Hell, the G5 did better than PC Mag said it did (Score:3, Insightful)
By taking percentages, you have assumed that each test is of equal relative weight. This runs the risk of oversimplification.
For example, if computer A does task 1 in 1 second, and computer B does the same in 1.1 second, then B is slower by 10%. If A does task 2 in 5 minutes, and B does it in 6 minutes, then B is slower by 20%. If you simply take the average, then you'll show that B is slower by 15%. However, if you add up the times taken
Didn't seem to use the G5 Photoshop plugin either (Score:3, Insightful)
While they did acknowledge that "Current users can download 64-bit plug-ins or upgraded versions of [Photoshop]," they also suggest that they didn't use the Adobe G5 plugin for the test: "the PowerPC G5... will continue to run 32-bit applications (like those in our test suite)."
I guess they were trying to make the test "fair" by not using code optimized for the G5?
Re:Didn't seem to use the G5 Photoshop plugin eith (Score:2)
So I'd say that they didn't hint that they weren't using the 7.0.1 G5 patch
Re:Didn't seem to use the G5 Photoshop plugin eith (Score:2)
And I wouldn't not say that they didn't not hint that they didn't not choose to not use the patch.
Professional Journalism at its finest! (Score:5, Funny)
Top-specked? What the hell is that? The same kind of paint specks on both machines?
PSBench (Score:5, Interesting)
Some of the folks in the forums over at Ars Technica [infopop.net] has been using PS7Bench (a 21 filter test) on a 50 MB test file. Their results are summarized here [geocities.com].
It is interesting to note that the G5 performs significantly better on the first 12 tests than on the last 9. The tests it performs the worst on are NTSC Colors, Accented Edges, and Water Color.
PLEASE MOD PARENT UP (Score:5, Insightful)
please mod parent way up. very interesting stuff. I am noting that a single-processor 1800Mhz G5 is neck-and-neck in performance with, but slightly lower than, dual-processor 2200Mhz Xeon.
in all benchmarks i've seen, it is becoming clear that while the G5 processor itself is a dramatic improvement, the overall motherboard rearchitecture entirely designed around high bandwidth for data flow is most definitely paying off. IMHO this overall architecture, beyond the mere CPU, is what will keep paying-off in the long-run.
The intel-based chips have been stuck around 3Ghz for a while now and my guess is a key reason has to do with heat dissipation and power consumption issues which could render dramatically faster clock speeds unsafe for your averagely-cooled machine. And this brings me to one main draw-back of the PC world: since so many components are independently architected, built and assembled by such a wide variety of vendors, no single component, and especially the CPU, fits as part of one consistent, overall hardware engineering vision. The intel chips weren't designed with efficient power consumption in mind in the first place. They were designed to sustain high clock speeds. period. MMX was an after-thought answer to Altivec. Most PC manufacturers have always grossly architected motherboards and enclosing cases without ever putting as much thought as Apple did with the new G5 architecture. [apple.com]
Apple defines the requirements of every single component that goes into their boxes. They will find vendors that meet those requirements. From the processor-maker, to the heat-sink, to every single fan, to the hard drives.
My guess is there is plenty of room for that G5 processor clock speed to grow. And when it does, the superior architecture of the enclosing case and all motherboards subsystems will both enable this clock speed growth and dramatically increase its performance boosts pay-offs.
Re:PLEASE MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you also noting that a 3Ghz P4 is quite a bit faster than both of them (and a *lot* cheaper) ? :)
Photoshop on the G5 clearly benefits more from SMP than PS on the Xeons - probably because of the G5's much faster bus. I suspect those Xeon results come from older machines with only a 533Mhz bus and the top P4 results come from machines with an 800Mhz bus.
The intel-
Re:PLEASE MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
HP and Dell go for the cheaper. IBM is better, so their machines tend to cost noticeably more.
Re:PLEASE MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe in their bargain basement machines. I've never seen anything in a Precision workstation that gives the impression of cheapness.
You're neglecting something important (Score:2)
Umm.. you know why these benchmarks that everyone does are stupid? Because the test the machine doing one task at once. Sure, the task has multiple parts, and may include more than just the processor, but all too often we see these little head-in-the-sand benchmarks that make the 3Ghz P4 look so good.
It's not. Want a real test? Run two of these benchmark tests simultaneously. Run 3. The p4 has a vastly h
Re:You're neglecting something important (Score:2)
Given OS X's poor GUI responsiveness, an attempt to recreate a "realistic" multitasking benchmark is going to make it look worse, not better.
It's not. Want a real test? Run two of these benchmark tests simul
Now now, that kind of fast-talk won't work on me. (Score:2)
Yeah, um, it's plenty responsive on my iBook 800. I do not know where you're drawing this from. Are you complaining that OSX doesn't have a smooth scroll feature like Windows does? They do in Panther, but honestly I don't like them. It's a lot harder to tell how far you're scrolling when there is an animation delay imposed.
Re:Now now, that kind of fast-talk won't work on m (Score:2)
Ah, this must be one of those special edition machines Apple gives to Mac Fans.
I do not know where you're drawing this from.
A great deal of experience. I've be using OS X off and on since the public beta, on a large selection of machines all the way up to (recently and briefly) a 1.6Ghz G5. OS X's GUI remained unresponsive and chunky on all of them.
I bought a Rev A 667 because I wanted to run OS X. Then I bought Jaguar because I was digusted at how fr
Re:Now now, that kind of fast-talk won't work on m (Score:2)
Okay, at first I thought you were just trolling, because my experiences with the G5 have been liquid smooth. Maybe we're using different meaningw or responsive sand smooth? On my dual 800 and even on my iBook there an be some frame loss when dragging very large windows or doing
Re:Now now, that kind of fast-talk won't work on m (Score:2)
Bullshit. But go on.
See, this is the point at which I lose interest in anything you have - or had - to say. Pretentious, snotty and condescending tones I can excuse as immaturity. But a personal attack - and a direct insult to
Re:Now now, that kind of fast-talk won't work on m (Score:2)
No, I didn't. I merely asked you to explain the conclusion you were drawing and the data you were drawing from.
Among other things. Like, "I don't own a P4, but I'm bragging about the one I'm using
Re:PLEASE MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Or, another way, the first PMG4 was released mid-1999 and SSE was around ~6 months beforehand.
Re:PSBench (Score:2)
Supposedly PS8 (isn't that the next one?) will have all components re-compiled and optimized for the G5 systems.
At least I'm guessing that the G5 accelerator patch is just like the accelerator that made PS compiled for 68K run much faster on PPC.
And not even with Panther... (Score:5, Interesting)
"PANTHER PUNCH"
Meanwhile, here's some data on the speed increase that OS X "Panther" (10.3) will provide G5 owners once it's released. We ran Xbench 1.1 on a G5 1.8GHz with 10.3 beta build 7B49. Compared to 10.2.7 "Jaguar"....
Re:And not even with Panther... (Score:2)
Re:And not even with Panther... (Score:2)
Don't trust anything an XBencher has to say about their XBench results. It's all crap. The test fluctuates by 10%-30% just by running it multiple times on the same computer. It's a crappy benchmark. The only reason it gets used at all is because it has a simple interface and thus anyone can run it.
Intrepreting the scores however is like reading palms.
It's like a weather forecast in Boston.
Re:And not even with Panther... (Score:3, Informative)
The G5 is a sincerely new and strange chip with pipelines unlike its Motorola ancestors. Binaries designed for PPC/G3/G4 run inefficiently on the G5 compared to true native binaries.
Re:And not even with Panther... (Score:2)
I think you have the wrong end of the stick. Applications are loading and calling routines from the Cocoa and Carbon runtime libraries. Upgrading the OS means (inter alia) upgrading the libraries, hopefully delivering a 'CPU' improvement to all applications.
The only way to solve this... (Score:5, Funny)
Wins 4-out-of-6 = "generally as fast"??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not surprising that PCMag is a sore loser because they are afraid of losing subscribers to Mac magazines.
Look at the total scores (Score:2)
With Final Cut Pro, the G5 and G4 comparison is:
G5: 5306.47s
G4: 7481.06s (41% more than the G5)
Without Final Cut Pro, the full comparison is:
G5: 1206.47s
G4: 1281.06s (6% more than the G5)
Dell: 1462.4s (21% more than the G5, 14% more than the G4)
This shows quite a different picture. Of course one could argue that the tests should be weighted differently, etc...
All you have to do to figure out which machine you should get is to weigh the
Re:Rough road ahead for Apple (Score:1)
What Went Wrong: A Trolling Analysis (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not just Cousin Ned (Score:2)
heh
i challenge you to do the research and post your findings. [pricewatch.com]
some [slashdot.org] hints [slashdot.org] for help [newegg.com].
in any case, if you aim at low-end, of course you can build a dirt-cheap PC for cheaper than a Mac. Even then eMacs and iMacs still remain an attractive alternative because of the superior operating system that is Mac OS X. And it's not like you could play any decent game worth playing on a $200 PC.
are you up to the challenge? or are you just going to keep trolling around?
Re:Not just Cousin Ned (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not just Cousin Ned (Score:1)
Hint 2. I'm not talking about those.
Hint 3. I'm talking about machines you build yourself. They're cheaper. Pure fact there.
Re:Not just Cousin Ned (Score:5, Insightful)
Myself, I have better things to do on my time off than research computer part prices, that's why a well-built factory machine will always be my choice, be it Windows or Mac OS. YMMV, of course, that mihgt be what you consider fun.
And remind me again: What happens when it breaks down? (and it will). Who takes care of that warranty?
It's called TCO. There's more to the cost of a machine than just the nuts and bolts used to put it together.
Re:Not just Cousin Ned (Score:1)
Re:Not just Cousin Ned (Score:2)
Re:Not just Cousin Ned (Score:2)
I tell all my friends to just get a Dell and I personally build my own. This way, I know I get good parts, I know it's not going to fail quickly, and I know that I don't have to offer tech support to my parents.
That, and I can also get one of those sweet Shuttle XPC cases.
Do I hear a goalpost moving? (Score:5, Interesting)
First, they said the Mac was hopelessly slow. Now we've got the G5's that are more than a match for much higher clocked x86 boxes.
Then they said the Mac was still too expensive. Now the top of the line G5 costs $3000, and the cheapest Dell with dual 3.06GHz Xeons, when you configure it to match the dual 2.0GHz G5's base configuration as closely as possible*, costs $4372. And that price has actually INCREASED BY $600 since June 28, when I first spec'd out an identical system in a previous discussion. [slashdot.org]
Now, they're down to "but you can have the Dell today, you have to wait two weeks for the G5."
Just give it up already, x86 apologists.
~Philly
*I configured a Dell PWS 450 by selecting two 3.06GHz Xeons, downgrading to 512MB of RAM, upgrading to a 120GB hard drive (still smaller than the G5's 160MB), upgrading to the cheapest drive that could write DVDs, adding a modem, adding a FireWire card, and subtracting a monitor. Components not specifically listed here were left at their default settings.
Re:Do I hear a goalpost moving? (Score:4, Funny)
beat that!
Re:Do I hear a goalpost moving? (Score:2)
Re:Do I hear a goalpost moving? (Score:2)
Re:Do I hear a goalpost moving? (Score:4, Informative)
Did you even read my post?
The G5 still costs the same price it did in June, but the Dell costs $600 MORE than it did back then. I'd be interested to hear how little your theory on constantly-falling component prices explains that particular fact.
~Philly
Re:Huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say it's far from "optimistic" hype and more towards "holy aluminum shit, batman" hype.
my 2 cents
Re:Huh. (Score:2)
Case in point, the 500 MHz Alpha could keep up with processors way above its clock speed.
Re:I HATE MAC'S (Score:2, Funny)
To:I HATE MAC'S..because I'm a moron... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I HATE MAC'S (Score:2)
I dno't recall the amiga 600 being well known for fast transfers, it's only got a 7.x mhz cpu after all
dave
What gives!?! (Score:5, Funny)
And does anyone realize that Macs don't even run Windows natively? What's the deal with that? What am I supposed to do with that software that I bought at the checkout line in Walgreens?
I mean benchmarks are cool and all, but let's focus on the important thing here: will it be able to run crippled software made by monopolistic theives who want to take over the world?
You crazy Slashdot people sure know how to blow things out of proportion.
This is like, trolling for justice :) (Score:2)
Re:Where are the 64-bit benches? (Score:3, Interesting)
The Itanium software list makes that Mac platform look like it's brimming over with available titles.
Apple isn't even a niche player when compared to Itanium. Itanium and the G5 don't come close to playing on the same field (price, use, target audience) so there really isn't a reason to compare them.
maybe it would fair if we compared 2 dual processor G5s to 1 dual 900MHz Itanium workstation since that's about where the pricing