PDA

View Full Version : Dual-Core G5's vs Dual-Core Pentium and Athlon???


RobHague
Nov 1, 2005, 09:39 AM
I don't like the benchmarks Apple are now using, comparing last generation 2.7Ghz Dual-Processor to the Quad and so on. I'm sure what people want to know when they are dumping so much money on a new PowerMac, is not if its faster than the last version (shouldnt that be obvious?) but how it compares to a PC for simular tasks.

How does photoshop compare in performance against say, a Windows system using a Dual-Core pentium at XGhz? Or the Athlon X2? It does not have to be about Intel all the time, AMD exist as well.

Video Encoding, Music ect... it would be nice to see where in the vast universal equasion of computers the Dual-Core G5's (and Quads) fit.

andiwm2003
Nov 1, 2005, 10:28 AM
I don't like the benchmarks Apple are now using, comparing last generation 2.7Ghz Dual-Processor to the Quad and so on. I'm sure what people want to know when they are dumping so much money on a new PowerMac, is not if its faster than the last version (shouldnt that be obvious?) but how it compares to a PC for simular tasks.

How does photoshop compare in performance against say, a Windows system using a Dual-Core pentium at XGhz? Or the Athlon X2? It does not have to be about Intel all the time, AMD exist as well.

Video Encoding, Music ect... it would be nice to see where in the vast universal equasion of computers the Dual-Core G5's (and Quads) fit.


i prefer the apple vs. apple benchmarks.

buying a windows box is no option for me anyway.
and comparing performance across platforms is very subjective. it depends on the hardware, the sytem, the specific progrm, the specific task. there are too many configurations for windows machines out there to have the comparison that i might be interested in.

so for me it's only interesting if the new machines are good within the apple universe. then i check in the store if the speed satisfies my needs.

i only want to have a general idea where the macs stand compared to wintel boxes.

but of course if you have the option to buy either a mac or a pc then a comparison would be good to have. it will be just hard to find it for your specific needs and options.

since the dual core macs are about as fast as the old dual g5's this barefeats benchmark for the old g5's and some wintel boxes might help: http://www.barefeats.com/dualcore.html

dubbz
Nov 1, 2005, 10:35 AM
How does photoshop compare in performance against say, a Windows system using a Dual-Core pentium at XGhz? Or the Athlon X2? It does not have to be about Intel all the time, AMD exist as well.

There's a Photoshop thread somewhere in these forums where lots of people have posted results for a simple Photoshop test. I remember seeing Opteron, Athlon X2, Xeon and dual G5 results there.

It should come up in a search.

dmw007
Nov 1, 2005, 11:08 AM
I don't like the benchmarks Apple are now using, comparing last generation 2.7Ghz Dual-Processor to the Quad and so on. I'm sure what people want to know when they are dumping so much money on a new PowerMac, is not if its faster than the last version (shouldnt that be obvious?) but how it compares to a PC for simular tasks.

How does photoshop compare in performance against say, a Windows system using a Dual-Core pentium at XGhz? Or the Athlon X2? It does not have to be about Intel all the time, AMD exist as well.

Video Encoding, Music ect... it would be nice to see where in the vast universal equasion of computers the Dual-Core G5's (and Quads) fit.

I agree, while Apple to Apple benchmarks are nice, I prefer to see how the new Power Macs compare to Macs as well as PCs. Not that it really matters, I only plan on buying Macs from here on out! :)

Mikael
Nov 1, 2005, 12:23 PM
There's a Photoshop thread somewhere in these forums where lots of people have posted results for a simple Photoshop test. I remember seeing Opteron, Athlon X2, Xeon and dual G5 results there.

It should come up in a search.
It might be worth noting that it seems as if the Athlon64 X2 or dual core Opteron are the current champs when it comes to Photoshop CS2. Atleast when it comes to the test in question... And I wouldn't call that test comprehensive. :D

dubbz
Nov 1, 2005, 12:28 PM
It might be worth noting that it seems as if the Athlon64 X2 or dual core Opteron are the current champs when it comes to Photoshop CS2. Atleast when it comes to the test in question... And I wouldn't call that test comprehensive. :D

Yes, I have a X2 myself and it's really zippy in Photoshop though I could use some more RAM. Not really surprising, since the current gen AMD's are great, and Adobe probably spend more resources optimizing the Windows version than they do on the OS X version.

contoursvt
Nov 1, 2005, 10:54 PM
The dual core AMD's as well as dual CPU xeons and opterons are all very fast. I think my score and a dual core AMD were the only ones to hit under 30 seconds (29 seconds)... My dual xeon 3Ghz box keeps me very happy but let me tell you about the power consumption. LOL....

I would avoid the dual core Intel stuff even though I love my intel. The dual core intel cpus DO NOT have hyperthreading except for the extreme edition one which costs a fortune. My dual Xeons do have HT so its probably comparable to the extreme dualcore. As a test, I disabled my hyperthreading and ran the test and let me tell you it sucks without it. From 29 seconds I went up to 46 seconds!!! Thats why I think the regular dual core P4's are not so good. If you go intel, get something that does have dual core and hyperthreading if you can help it.

superbovine
Nov 2, 2005, 02:33 PM
I don't like the benchmarks Apple are now using, comparing last generation 2.7Ghz Dual-Processor to the Quad and so on. I'm sure what people want to know when they are dumping so much money on a new PowerMac, is not if its faster than the last version (shouldnt that be obvious?) but how it compares to a PC for simular tasks.

How does photoshop compare in performance against say, a Windows system using a Dual-Core pentium at XGhz? Or the Athlon X2? It does not have to be about Intel all the time, AMD exist as well.

Video Encoding, Music ect... it would be nice to see where in the vast universal equasion of computers the Dual-Core G5's (and Quads) fit.

Just some info on a photoshop benchmark. using photoshop to benmarks PC vs Macs or even different families of processors is not the best measurement because the scripts can be tweaked to favor another processorers advantanges etc. So whenever you look at a photoshop script exam the source of the benchmark. Although, video encoding and audio encoding are pretty decent benchmark to use between the two system because PPC chips usually have the advantage with video and x86 processor usually have the advantage in audio encoding due to RISC vs CISC stuff.

jiggie2g
Nov 2, 2005, 03:05 PM
The Athlon 64 X2's are the fastest chips on the market..bar none. the X2 3800+(dual 2.0ghz 512K L2) have been known to own even the Pentium D 840's(dual 3.2ghz 1MB L2) while running stock in some benchmarks. The other 2 Pentium D's get decimated.

The great Advantage with the Athlon 64/ FX / Opteron series is the on-chip memory controller this is the X-factor in the CPU besides the short stage pipeline. The On-Chip Memory Controller lets is communicate the with the ram at very low latency via Hypertransport. So even when the L2 cache is cut in half the performance hit is minimal. 512k vs. 1MB L2 AMD 64's have a difference of 5-7% in most benchmarks.

RobHague
Nov 2, 2005, 03:17 PM
The Athlon 64 X2's are the fastest chips on the market..bar none even the X2 3800+(dual 2.0ghz 512K L2) have been known to own even the Pentium D 840's(dual 3.2ghz 1MB L2) while running stock in some benchmarks. The other 2 Pentium D's get decimated.

I have seen benchmarks showing the Athlon 64 X2's behind too. Usually in creative/content creation type stuff. The Athlons lead the way in all the games though.

jiggie2g
Nov 2, 2005, 03:38 PM
I have seen benchmarks showing the Athlon 64 X2's behind too. Usually in creative/content creation type stuff. The Athlons lead the way in all the games though.


Against what chip what model , i wanna see benchmarks.

Aliquis
Nov 2, 2005, 04:01 PM
So what is the defacto - cross platform benchmark method? What's the best way to compare this and such and such PC/Intel against this and such and such Mac?

RobHague
Nov 2, 2005, 05:23 PM
Against what chip what model , i wanna see benchmarks.

You could have at least said please ;)

Quickly searching...
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-15.html

There it took the 4800+ to beat the 3.2Ghz Pentium D (considering the price difference id hope so). Same story on other sites, the Pentium and AMD take the lead over each other depending. You really can't just say XXX chip is the best. period. Because it depends what you want to do with the computer. If someone buys a system for Audio/Video work why would they care if the Athlon can play Doom3 xxfps faster than the Intel?

But as the Intels are no slouch for VIDEO/AUDIO im assuming its why Apple see them as their main competitors.... although not anymore i guess :D

jiggie2g
Nov 2, 2005, 11:28 PM
You could have at least said please ;)

Quickly searching...
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-15.html

There it took the 4800+ to beat the 3.2Ghz Pentium D (considering the price difference id hope so). Same story on other sites, the Pentium and AMD take the lead over each other depending. You really can't just say XXX chip is the best. period. Because it depends what you want to do with the computer. If someone buys a system for Audio/Video work why would they care if the Athlon can play Doom3 xxfps faster than the Intel?

But as the Intels are no slouch for VIDEO/AUDIO im assuming its why Apple see them as their main competitors.... although not anymore i guess :D


LMAO it's obvious that you don't know much about PC Tech sites , if you did you would have not posted a link from the Intel Propoganda Machine Tom's Hardware , they have become the FOX News of Tech Sites. I have seen the Inquirer , Anandtech , and a bunch of those forums slam these guy because they are soo deep in Intels Pocket. TOM IS AN INTEL WHORE.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2484&p=5

jaduffy108
Nov 3, 2005, 12:52 AM
LMAO it's obvious that you don't know much about PC Tech sites , if you did you would have not posted a link from the Intel Propoganda Machine Tom's Hardware , they have become the FOX News of Tech Sites. I have seen the Inquirer , Anandtech , and a bunch of those forums slam these guy because they are soo deep in Intels Pocket.

Exactly. techreport.com, anandtech, etc show the X2 and Opteron chips are smokin' on dcc..that's precisely why i bought one. Intel is currently way behind AMD. Exception...Intel does VERY well on Photoshop....but compare them on 3d Maya/3dsmax renders...AMD rules. Proof of Intel's overall lesser performance, worse power consumption, heat, etc compared to AMD is in abundance..and not the least of which is... Intel just announced a shake up in their "roadmap"...where they are now basically going to copy AMD's HyperTransport. Hey...it's very good news for Apple x86 imo. Intel has brought many great things to market...and more are probably on the way...merom/conroe, etc.

I am looking forward to seeing some quad core Opteron 280 systems go up against the quad PM...just for fun. Because of NUMA...i'm betting on the Opterons...confidently.

peace

ravenvii
Nov 3, 2005, 01:19 AM
LMAO it's obvious that you don't know much about PC Tech sites , if you did you would have not posted a link from the Intel Propoganda Machine Tom's Hardware , they have become the FOX News of Tech Sites. I have seen the Inquirer , Anandtech , and a bunch of those forums slam these guy because they are soo deep in Intels Pocket. TOM IS AN INTEL WHORE.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2484&p=5

How did I know you will post in this thread, I wonder?

Chip NoVaMac
Nov 3, 2005, 01:31 AM
Speed and benchmarks are one thing, but the stability of the OS is another. A 10 to 20% hit on performance on Ps or another program will be well worth the it staying with OSX over WinC(rap)....

RobHague
Nov 3, 2005, 08:49 AM
Well, the Intel Propoganda Machine known as "Tom's Hardware" said the AMD was the better CPU in the Conclusion. :rolleyes:

I think Intel need a new propoganda machine don't you? ;)

contoursvt
Nov 3, 2005, 09:05 AM
I dont think anyone actually read the thread. Just started blabbing about toms hardware.. propaganda..blah blah blah. He concluded that the dual core AMD was better and faster in virtually every test and used less power too and its the way to go. God I hate people who dont even read before they speak. I'm sure he was taking AMD's side in this review because he's an Intel whore...... :rolleyes:

That said, I'll put my dual xeon box against any currently released X2 or dual opteron :) I've already had a chance to play with my friends X2 4800+ ... its very fast for photoshop but not fast enough to take out my older 3Ghz xeons. Other tasks are a different story but for photoshop I think dual core's with HT (extreme edition) or dual xeons would be the best choice.

jiggie2g
Nov 3, 2005, 09:45 AM
Exactly. techreport.com, anandtech, etc show the X2 and Opteron chips are smokin' on dcc..that's precisely why i bought one. Intel is currently way behind AMD. Exception...Intel does VERY well on Photoshop....but compare them on 3d Maya/3dsmax renders...AMD rules. Proof of Intel's overall lesser performance, worse power consumption, heat, etc compared to AMD is in abundance..and not the least of which is... Intel just announced a shake up in their "roadmap"...where they are now basically going to copy AMD's HyperTransport. Hey...it's very good news for Apple x86 imo. Intel has brought many great things to market...and more are probably on the way...merom/conroe, etc.

I am looking forward to seeing some quad core Opteron 280 systems go up against the quad PM...just for fun. Because of NUMA...i'm betting on the Opterons...confidently.

peace

Here's that Tech Report Article you were talking about.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q3/athlon64-x2-3800/index.x?pg=7

and if anyone whats to know Tom has a history of being very favorable to Intel when he reviews thier Nuclear Powered CPU's. just do a google search

http://www.geek.com/newsbeta2/geeknews/2002Sep/bch20020912016318.htm

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=28&threadid=1713628&frmKeyword=&STARTPAGE=1&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

Another interesting read from the horses mouth

http://www.tgdaily.com/2004/02/18/intel/

contoursvt
Nov 3, 2005, 09:53 AM
Jiggie2g, those links really dont prove anything, they are pretty much speculation and not real hard facts.

andiwm2003
Nov 3, 2005, 10:13 AM
wow, 15 out of 20 mails don't even mention apple anymore. this has become a thread intel vs. amd. please add at least where the mac's would fit in. but i guess they suck anyway compared to the super duper gaming rigs.

jiggie2g
Nov 3, 2005, 10:27 AM
It Amazes me how many so called loyal mac fan have suddenly flip floped into Intel Fanboys almost over night ,I remember a time if some one came here braging about Intel they would get Flamed and Crucified.

Now since the Almighty Steve'O managed to shaft himself after tryin to low ball IBM on CPU pricing then come up with a foney let me save face excuse like "Intel's are more Power efficient". It's good they told him to take a walk.

Suddenly Apple jumps on the Sinking ship that is Intel and fanbois have multiplied like Gremlins. Please people in the last 8 months alone how many time has intel revised thier road map just to try and match AMD. Now they are trying to Implement HTT in thier own systems ...talk about pathetic. that company has so many Internal problems it's almost Legendary...the Enginnering Dept. and Marketing Dept. have a fued that is only rivaled by Sony's Electronics Division vs. Sony's Music Division.

How do u think Intel got to this point in the 1st place ,

Intel Exec: We need more ghz to promote these CPU's
Intel Engineer : Well if we keep ramping up speed at this rate our cpu's will have to be designed less efficiently.

Intel Exec:I don't care we want more speed , we want 4ghz nowwwwwwwwwww.
Intel Engineer : Ok but I have to warn you , eventually these chips are going to hit a wall and overheat too much.

Intel Exec: Screw that we'll worry about it later , you guys can fix it. We just want to sell more chips.
Intel Engineer : (shakes his head in disbelief).....Okay don't say I didn't warn you.

jaduffy108
Nov 3, 2005, 10:41 AM
Speed and benchmarks are one thing, but the stability of the OS is another. A 10 to 20% hit on performance on Ps or another program will be well worth the it staying with OSX over WinC(rap)....

>>>I see you've had your daily cup of Apple koolaid. That's pure MacFUD.

contoursvt
Nov 3, 2005, 10:42 AM
jiggie2g,

The reality is this. Intel has been around longer than AMD. Intel only went the high Mhz route since the P4... P3 and older were not of this design. Either case, I personally was an AMD fan. These were my systems:

AMD K6 233, 64mb RAM
AMD K2-350, 128mb RAM
AMD Athlon classic 600Mhz, 256mb RAM
AMD Thunderbird 1Ghz, 256mb RAM
AMD Thunderbird 1.4Ghz, 512mb RAM
AMD XP 1800+ 512mb RAM
AMD XP 2500+ 1024mb RAM

I decided i'll try intel for once and went for a P4 2.4C system on an Abit IS7 mainboard (865pe board) with 1gig RAM and can say it was better and more satisfying than all my previous systems, not just because it was faster but because it was in my opinion a little less buggy and multitasking was much smoother. From there I went to a 3.0C which was great. I currently have a Dual 3Ghz Xeon Nocona system with 2 gig RAM and I think its incredible. I have played around with a friends X2 4800+ and in my opinion, it is a nice system and it is fast but in at least photoshop, it is not faster than my already somewhat old dual xeon box so dont think just because its intel, means its not fast.

Intel has had many other advantages over AMD as well. The fact that the processor would protect itself in the event of a cpu fan failiure is one important item. This feature has been around for ever on the intels and until recently not available on the AMD within the chip. Some boards had options for it but even they would not be ideal. I wouldnt trust it.

Also I dont know what the power consumption of a dual core AMD system is but as high as the intel's might be, I dont think its as bad as everyone makes it seem. My dual cpu box with 2 gigs ram, 3 scsi drives, x800xt-pe video, scsi controller, addon soundcard and two optical drives uses about 228 watts at idle and about 308w during Doom3 gameplay.

kyeblue
Nov 3, 2005, 10:43 AM
The Athlon 64 X2's are the fastest chips on the market..bar none. the X2 3800+(dual 2.0ghz 512K L2) have been known to own even the Pentium D 840's(dual 3.2ghz 1MB L2) while running stock in some benchmarks. The other 2 Pentium D's get decimated.

The great Advantage with the Athlon 64/ FX / Opteron series is the on-chip memory controller this is the X-factor in the CPU besides the short stage pipeline. The On-Chip Memory Controller lets is communicate the with the ram at very low latency via Hypertransport. So even when the L2 cache is cut in half the performance hit is minimal. 512k vs. 1MB L2 AMD 64's have a difference of 5-7% in most benchmarks.

Thanks for the great information. Any recommendation on where to buy a AMD Athlon 64X2 system? My budget is around $2500 and I need expandibity on RAM. I am looking for a PC to supplement my MACs. Thanks in advance.

jaduffy108
Nov 3, 2005, 10:46 AM
Jiggie2g, those links really dont prove anything, they are pretty much speculation and not real hard facts.


Have you ever considered a career in politics? Bush could use a guy like you on the EPA...regarding global warming, etc.

jaduffy108
Nov 3, 2005, 10:59 AM
Thanks for the great information. Any recommendation on where to buy a AMD Athlon 64X2 system? My budget is around $2500 and I need expandibity on RAM. I am looking for a PC to supplement my MACs. Thanks in advance.


I would suggest building your own. You will save a lot of $$...and...learn a LOT too....making you a valuable asset to the Apple community which is generally NOT very educated in the broader tech world. That said: from newegg.com or tigerdirect.com

Athlon64 X2 3800+ = $347
Asus A8N SLI = $133
OCZ 2GB (2 x 1GB) DDR400 memory = $253
GeForce 7800GTX = Starting at $459
160GB Seagate SATA HDD with NCQ = $91
OCZ Powerstream 520 Watt PSU = $139
Thermaltake case..$?..say really nice one: $200
Some DVD drive...$60

total: $1,682

Once you're up...do a little homework. Then you can overclock that X2 3800 to 2.4...safely...yes, you *can* go higher, but i wouldn't. Dualcore 2.4...sweet.

Want to buy prebuilt for games? Alienware.
For dcc, Boxxtech.

peace

jiggie2g
Nov 3, 2005, 11:07 AM
Thanks for the great information. Any recommendation on where to buy a AMD Athlon 64X2 system? My budget is around $2500 and I need expandibity on RAM. I am looking for a PC to supplement my MACs. Thanks in advance.

Here's a very Nice system for the Money that i saw on compusa.com

http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=332849&pfp=BROWSE

This is the Killer of the 2ghz DC PowerMac. It has Intergrated graphics but you can pick up a Mid-High Video card on newegg at a great price.

Or better yet if you're into DIY PC's you can just get componets on newegg. Athlon X2 3800+ chips are now in the $325 range.

Mikael
Nov 3, 2005, 11:10 AM
The reality is this. Intel has been around longer than AMD.
That is correct. Intel was founded in '68 and AMD in '69. Not much to talk about. :)

Also I dont know what the power consumption of a dual core AMD system is but as high as the intel's might be, I dont think its as bad as everyone makes it seem. My dual cpu box with 2 gigs ram, 3 scsi drives, x800xt-pe video, scsi controller, addon soundcard and two optical drives uses about 228 watts at idle and about 308w during Doom3 gameplay.
Well an equal performing Pentium-D outputs considerably more power than the X2. Here are some numbers from Lost Circuits:

Athlon64 X2 4800+ Load: 86W

Pentium4 840EE 3.2GHz Load: 147W

It's not as if the difference in power consumption is small. It's in fact large enough to make people rightfully shy away from it (or its lower clocked cousins). The fact that it generally performs worse than the competition is another reason to stay clear.

jiggie2g
Nov 3, 2005, 11:13 AM
Wow you want to see something even more intersting , I actually put together a PC on newegg and where's what i got.

Athlon X2 3800+ $327
DFI nForce 4 Ultra Infinity $95.99
1GB(512x2)DDR 3200 Corsair Value Select $79.67
XFX Geforce 6600 256MB DDR $102
Hitachi 250GB SATA II 3.0Gb/s HD $103
NEC ND-3540A 16x DVD-+RW 8x DVD-+R DL $39.98
Antec P180 Case w/3x 120mm fans $115.99
Antec Smartpower 2.0 PSU 500watt Dual Rail $68.99

So Far $932.62 for Hardware ...now on to software.

M$ Windows XP PRO SP2 OEM $134.95
M$ Works Suite 2005 OEM $ 69.95
Adobe Photoshop Elements + Premiere Elements 2.0 $134.95
ZoneAlarm Pro $34.95
Trend Micro PC Cillin 2005 Anti-Virus $34.99

Software Total is $409.79

Hardware $932.62 + Software $409.79 + $34.99 shipping = $1,386.11

The Price of the DC 2.0ghz PM in similar configuration is $2224

So Apple is selling you OSX + iLife for only $835.89 extra... what a bargin .

I'd take that extra $835.89 and buy me a Dell 2405 fpw

Please note that I added a very high quality case in the Antec P-180 and a High power PSU in the SmartPower 2.0, I could have added just an Antec Sonata 2 with it's bundled 400w PSU at $110 ,but I wanted this to be as fair as possible.

Also lets be realistic about a few things who pays for Windows these days , people pass those cracked CD's around like they were AOL discs. Another reason why windos will continue to dominate.

There is so much freeware that I wouldn't pay for any software on PC example.

Open Office , Firefox , Thunderbird , DVD Shrink+ DVD Decryptor , AVG Anti-Virus , ZoneAlarm Firewall , iTunes , Picasa 2 , Konfabulator 2 , M$ Spyware, Spybot just to name a few....I use all of these and have saved a ton.

jaduffy108
Nov 3, 2005, 11:17 AM
It Amazes me how many so called loyal mac fan have suddenly flip floped into Intel Fanboys almost over night ,I remember a time if some one came here braging about Intel they would get Flamed and Crucified.

Now since the Almighty Steve'O managed to shaft himself after tryin to low ball IBM on CPU pricing then come up with a foney let me save face excuse like "Intel's are more Power efficient". It's good they told him to take a walk.

Suddenly Apple jumps on the Sinking ship that is Intel and fanbois have multiplied like Gremlins. Please people in the last 8 months alone how many time has intel revised thier road map just to try and match AMD. Now they are trying to Implement HTT in thier own systems ...talk about pathetic. that company has so many Internal problems it's almost Legendary...the Enginnering Dept. and Marketing Dept. have a fued that is only rivaled by Sony's Electronics Division vs. Sony's Music Division.

How do u think Intel got to this point in the 1st place ,

Intel Exec: We need more ghz to promote these CPU's
Intel Engineer : Well if we keep ramping up speed at this rate our cpu's will have to be designed less efficiently.

Intel Exec:I don't care we want more speed , we want 4ghz nowwwwwwwwwww.
Intel Engineer : Ok but I have to warn you , eventually these chips are going to hit a wall and overheat too much.

Intel Exec: Screw that we'll worry about it later , you guys can fix it. We just want to sell more chips.
Intel Engineer : (shakes his head in disbelief).....Okay don't say I didn't warn you.

TOOOO many Apple fans are cult members. No matter the question or task at hand...just repeat....OSX...OSX...OSX.... Better than windows...better than windows....better than windows. Through therapy...and watching friend's pc's smoke my Mac on Maya rendering...i broke free.:D
I'm a big fan of "Steve" in many ways, but..i think you nailed it. Consistent Apple partnership failures...and Stevie boy is the common denominator. hmmm. Things that make you go...hmmmm. His arrogance is a problem imo.

Oh..and thanks for the good laugh too. I sincerely hope Intel's Conroe/merom lives up to the hype. It will be great for OSX x86 and inspire AMD to keep on kickin a$$.

peace

jaduffy108
Nov 3, 2005, 11:24 AM
[QUOTE=jiggie2g]

So Apple is selling you OSX + iLife for only $835.89 extra... what a bargin .

>>>LOL

I'd take that extra $835.89 and buy me a Dell 2405 fpw

>>>yep. I love mine.

jiggie2g
Nov 3, 2005, 11:35 AM
[QUOTE=jiggie2g]

So Apple is selling you OSX + iLife for only $835.89 extra... what a bargin .

>>>LOL

I'd take that extra $835.89 and buy me a Dell 2405 fpw

>>>yep. I love mine.


Oh i didn't buy that system , i just put it together in another tread and wanted to show it to kyeblue as a reference to work on. I have my Imperial G5 Destroyer spec's on my Signature. :D

I want that freakin Dell 2405 fpw sooooo bad i am envious ....:(


Oh by the way if anyone wants a test of just how powerful the X2's are take this into accout
I decided to run a multi-task test yesterday this is what i ran.

Firefox with 2 multi tabbed windows open
Thunderbird
AVG anti virus
Zonealarm Pro
Konfabulator w/ 3 widgets
Trillian
MS Anti Spyware
iTunes 6..playing audio + visualizer
Real player ..playing video
Quicktime 7..playing video
WMP 10 ...playing video
DVD Shrink....Encoding


all this on at full speed and everything was smooth...I was very impressed . this would have killed my Venice Athlon 64 3000+

RatVega
Nov 3, 2005, 01:17 PM
If you try to look at this reasonably, pretty much everyone has a hot machine these days...

I don't play games, so for me there's only one meaningful benchmark:
What will transcode MPEG-2 fastest while maintaining the ability to run Final Cut Studio in an OS X environment?

Everything else is just specs...

BTW, how are those other systems in floating point? The new Quad cranks 76.6 GigaFlops...

contoursvt
Nov 3, 2005, 01:53 PM
Hey here is something I was trying a few months back and since I was impressed with it, I took a screenshot.

I was playing doom3 in a window at 1024x768 on high detail, while listening to some mp3's while encoding two DVD's at the same time from my two DVD burners. All this while maintaining 60+ FPS in Doom3 and using less than 45% cpu usage. Not bad :)

http://powerthings.com/pics/stresstest2.jpg

jiggie2g
Nov 3, 2005, 02:21 PM
Hey here is something I was trying a few months back and since I was impressed with it, I took a screenshot.

I was playing doom3 in a window at 1024x768 on high detail, while listening to some mp3's while encoding two DVD's at the same time from my two DVD burners. All this while maintaining 60+ FPS in Doom3 and using less than 45% cpu usage. Not bad :)

http://powerthings.com/pics/stresstest2.jpg


Call me foolish for not knowing this , but I didn't think you could use 2 optical drives at once. Especially for something at stressful as encoding.

Hey contoursvt are u using a Pentium D or X2 and what Model/Clock ..post ur Rig.:)

Also what DVD encoding app were u using.

Mikael
Nov 3, 2005, 03:12 PM
BTW, how are those other systems in floating point? The new Quad cranks 76.6 GigaFlops...
Completing nearly 8 floating point operations per clock cycle? It sounds awfully high, but I'm no expert on these things. I don't think that the Opteron would come close, though. It would also probably depend on the program used to measure this. I know that SiSoft Sandra provides a means of measuring this. An Athlon64 X2 4800+ (2.4GHz) is reported to have 10GFlops of floating point power. Extrapolation would yield a result of ~21GFlops for a system with four cores running at 2.5GHz.

EDIT: Might add that I don't care much for the throwing around of gflop values. There are a lot of factors to consider.

EDIT2: Also, an advantage that large [over the Opteron/A64] would shine through in actual apps. If the tests weren't made to be misleading, that is.

contoursvt
Nov 3, 2005, 03:13 PM
I'm running a pair of 3Ghz Xeons with 2 gig DDR400 RAM. Essentially should be the same as a 3Ghz dual core intel (but the higher model that has Hyperthreading since the Xeons include hyperthreading).

As for the optical drives. You can use two at the same time if you've got them on seperate chains. I dont run IDE drives so I can afford to give each drive its own IDE port. I run 15k 36gig SCSI drives (3 of them).


http://powerthings.com/pics/mydual.jpg
http://powerthings.com/pics/side.jpg
http://powerthings.com/pics/coolers.jpg