PDA

View Full Version : Why so slow??




sk8er123
Apr 19, 2012, 04:38 PM
Ok I have a question: why does a Powermac Quad Core 2.5 GHz get a benchmark score of 3284 and a 2011 Macbook Pro gets 5900. Shouldn't the powermac get higher since it is QUAD core not dual like the macbook AND 2.5 ghz not 2.3 like the macbook. Also I plan on getting a quad powermac, how high do you think I can get the xbench score by maxing out as much as I can?:) Thanks



thorns
Apr 19, 2012, 05:06 PM
Because the G5 CPU and periphery is from '05/'06 and the Intel stuff is ca. 6 months old. Look up Moore's Law.

tayloralmond
Apr 19, 2012, 05:48 PM
Ok I have a question: why does a Powermac Quad Core 2.5 GHz get a benchmark score of 3284 and a 2011 Macbook Pro gets 5900. Shouldn't the powermac get higher since it is QUAD core not dual like the macbook AND 2.5 ghz not 2.3 like the macbook. Also I plan on getting a quad powermac, how high do you think I can get the xbench score by maxing out as much as I can?:) Thanks

I generally get around 3700 on my Quad in 64bit mode on GeekBench. It's unlikely you'll ever get much higher than that. For the averages, go check out GeekBench's website and they show average benchmark scores for each specific model. 3284 is a pretty average score in 32bit mode. If you want to raise your score, make sure you have all other programs closed when you run the test, then just let the computer sit for a couple minutes and I bet you'll get a higher score.

EDIT: I misread your post. I thought you ran the test. Whoops lol.

macdatadrive
Apr 19, 2012, 10:01 PM
I wouldn't worry about it too much - my white unibody C2D Macbook (late '09) only comes in at 3148.
So the PMG5 is faster than this.

KurtangleTN
Apr 21, 2012, 06:07 AM
The Core i series has been a breakthrough for Intel. While since the original C2D there have been incremental upgrades this was a true breakthrough.

To put it in perspective the cheapest MBA at $999 will outbench ANY PPC Mac ever made, every Macbook (regular) ever made, every Macbook Pro prior to 2010, every Mac mini prior to the recent model, every iMac as recent as late as 2009 (only the highest end 2009 27" beats it out too), and most shockingly the original Mac Pro in any configuration, including the Quad 3.00ghz Xeon that was king until 2008.

That also means the $600 Mac Mini will outbench all of those computers as well.

Of course this just tests CPU.. no graphical performance, no hard drive performance.. etc.

Still, it's pretty amazing to think. I remember a post just 3-4 years ago asking if the original Mac Pro would still be a beast in 10 years.. although I knew technology would catch up to it. I didn't think in less than half that time we'd have our lowest end computers outbenching it.

barkmonster
Apr 24, 2012, 11:36 PM
You 'd be better off picking up a used Intel Mac Mini from 2009 than a G5. An even earlier model with a Core 2 duo might suit you depending on your needs too and that's even cheaper still.

I'm still on a G4 at present but the used prices mean I can get a system that runs Lion, handles dual screens, can be upgraded to 8Gb for peanuts, doesn't consume much in the way of watts, supports SATA 2 drives at full speed (handy for SSDs) and isn't obsolete.

For comparison:-

8Gb Crucial RAM

Quad G5: 91.18 VS (2009) Mac Mini: 34.79

Used prices (based on eBay completed listing search)

Quad G5: 300 VS (2009) Mac Mini: 320

Also the G5 is liquid cooled and only offers 1 internal drive bay in addition to the system drive so either way, you'd have to go the external route to add any kind of backup such as a NAS drive etc...

burnout8488
Apr 25, 2012, 01:30 AM
You have a lot to learn, grasshopper.

throAU
Apr 25, 2012, 01:47 AM
The Core i series has been a breakthrough for Intel. While since the original C2D there have been incremental upgrades this was a true breakthrough.


Yup. Whilst the core 2 was a breakthrough for power consumption, the core I series are again a quantum leap ahead of the core 2.

Even a core i3 dual core is faster at many things than a core 2 quad of similar clock speed - and the core 2 wasn't ever a slow CPU in its day (which was after the g5 from memory)

CPU architecture moves on. The g5 may be quad core, but those cores are very old and don't have a lot of instructions in hardware to speed up common tasks.

Jethryn Freyman
Apr 25, 2012, 04:14 AM
Keep in mind that it's not all about processor speed... for example, even if the MBA can beat a Mac Pro in some CPU tests, its' graphics power is nowhere near the same level. Nor is upgradability, RAM capacity, etc.

KurtangleTN
Apr 25, 2012, 11:57 PM
Yup. Whilst the core 2 was a breakthrough for power consumption, the core I series are again a quantum leap ahead of the core 2.

Even a core i3 dual core is faster at many things than a core 2 quad of similar clock speed - and the core 2 wasn't ever a slow CPU in its day (which was after the g5 from memory)

CPU architecture moves on. The g5 may be quad core, but those cores are very old and don't have a lot of instructions in hardware to speed up common tasks.

The Core Duo series was also a big breakthrough in performance too. It blew away the P4s and the M series that it replaced. On the Apple side it was of course huge too. Every single model received a massive upgrade in CPU performance. The G4s were so long in the tooth by the end there.

sk8er123
Apr 26, 2012, 06:28 AM
Thank you for all of the replies. They were very helpful. I understand now that it is not just the speed of the processor. THANKS:apple: