Power Mac G5 Quad Benchmarks

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

One of our Wales UK-based members has reported receiving his Power Mac G5 Quad (http://www.apple.com/powermac/) earlier in the week, and has run a preliminary set of Xbench benchmarks on it. While full details are in the forum thread, the overall score for the machine with 3 GB RAM running Mac OS X 10.4.2 weighs in at 151.86.

[Mudbug]

Xbench Results:
Results 151.86
System Info
Xbench Version 1.2
System Version 10.4.2 (8E90)
Physical RAM 3072 MB
Model PowerMac11,2
Processor PowerPC G5x4 @ 2.50 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 1024K @ 2.50 GHz
Bus Frequency 1 GHz
Drive Type WDC WD2500JS-41MVB1
CPU Test 125.82
GCD Loop 125.52 6.62 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 125.96 2.99 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 129.52 4.27 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 122.46 21.32 Mops/sec
Thread Test 246.38
Computation 252.23 5.11 Mops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 240.79 10.36 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 129.76
System 123.99
Allocate 116.39 427.43 Kalloc/sec
Fill 172.55 8389.84 MB/sec
Copy 101.94 2105.60 MB/sec
Stream 136.10
Copy 134.55 2779.01 MB/sec [G5]
Scale 134.42 2777.05 MB/sec [G5]
Add 137.73 2933.98 MB/sec [G5]
Triad 137.79 2947.68 MB/sec [G5]
Quartz Graphics Test 150.30
Line 124.14 8.27 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 141.05 42.11 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 140.17 11.43 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 133.71 3.37 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 284.92 17.82 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 144.50
Spinning Squares 144.50 183.30 frames/sec
User Interface Test 229.01
Elements 229.01 1.05 Krefresh/sec
Disk Test 71.27
Sequential 101.86
Uncached Write 116.11 71.29 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 106.60 60.32 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 76.82 22.48 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 121.06 60.84 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 54.81
Uncached Write 20.79 2.20 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 135.37 43.34 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 97.78 0.69 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 137.66 25.54 MB/sec [256K blocks]

[Lacero]

Not sure how fast 151.86 on Xbench is. Any real world tests using everyday apps such as Shake?

Sounds great if the quads can run 70-80% faster than the dual-cores.

[AoWolf]

Need more comparison data.

Not sure how fast 151.86 on Xbench is. Any real world tests using everyday apps such as Shake?

Yeah I would like to see it next to a duel 2.7

[Kobushi]

Need more comparison data.

Not sure how fast 151.86 on Xbench is. Any real world tests using everyday apps such as Shake?

I concur.

I was just thinking "oooo pretty numbers" then realized I have no idea what they mean. Any hardware savvy folks care to explain?

[Mr Maui]

Yeah I would like to see it next to a duel 2.7
Simply put ... it's faster!! :D

Actual comparisons in real world activities will come out as more people receive their boxes.

[slipper]

151...thats it?

[b.k.jackson]

For comparison, my PowerBook (15" Alu) 1.25 G4 got a 102.80

Brian

[liketom]

i was expecting more to be truefull?

but real world tests would be cool

itunes lossless speeds like on ZDnet UK lol

he wants to do the photoshop test !!!

[macbaseball]

151...thats it?

That's what I thought too, but I just tested my Dual 2.3 and I got 115.

[Fabio_gsilva]

For me this numbers mean nothing... I can't understand if it's is astonishing or just good, because I don't know any reference to check this out... Oh man... :o

[Chaszmyr]

Xbench is a lowsy benchmark program, imo. It weighs in everything, so if your dual 2.7 has the same hard drive, faster video card, and more RAM, you might well score almost as high even if your processor is a lot slower... And on top of that, I don't think the numbers are all that accurate or consistent.

With that said, here are the results from my dual 2.7 with 10.4.2, 3gb RAM, and a GeForce 6800 Ultra:

Results 109.87
System Info
Xbench Version 1.2
System Version 10.4.2 (8C46)
Physical RAM 3072 MB
Model PowerMac7,3
Processor PowerPC G5x2 @ 2.70 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 2.70 GHz
Bus Frequency 1 GHz
Video Card GeForce 6800 Ultra
Drive Type Hitachi HDS724040KLSA80
CPU Test 136.73
GCD Loop 135.74 7.16 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 135.24 3.21 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 140.73 4.64 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 135.35 23.57 Mops/sec
Thread Test 136.73
Computation 139.18 2.82 Mops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 134.36 5.78 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 102.83
System 104.67
Allocate 142.29 522.53 Kalloc/sec
Fill 139.42 6778.70 MB/sec
Copy 69.16 1428.42 MB/sec
Stream 101.05
Copy 101.85 2103.59 MB/sec [G5]
Scale 101.74 2101.95 MB/sec [G5]
Add 100.63 2143.73 MB/sec [G5]
Triad 100.00 2139.22 MB/sec [G5]
Quartz Graphics Test 135.14
Line 132.53 8.82 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 131.38 39.22 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 132.36 10.79 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 132.24 3.34 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 148.70 9.30 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 136.03
Spinning Squares 136.03 172.56 frames/sec
User Interface Test 133.26
Elements 133.26 611.58 refresh/sec
Disk Test 58.46
Sequential 94.22
Uncached Write 101.07 62.06 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 90.15 51.00 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 87.06 25.48 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 100.18 50.35 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 42.38
Uncached Write 15.43 1.63 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 89.89 28.78 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 93.40 0.66 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 129.35 24.00 MB/sec [256K blocks]

You'll notice I scored higher on CPU, which obviously means that tests a single CPU. Looks like one of the biggest hits i took was on HD, which isn't surprising because hard drives slow down once you get a bunch of stuff on them. I scored a lot lower on memory, which is how it should be. The only real surprise is that I scored lower on graphics tests... The 6800 Ultra drivers really bite. The thing you really need to take note of, is I scored WAY lower on the thread test.

[risc]

Everyone knows XBench is a load of crap, I put a faster video card and faster HDD in my Power Mac and the score went down. ;) If you run it 10 times you'll get 10 varied answered, and I absolutely hate the way the people that made XBench constantly change the base line so you update and you go from 220 points down to 120.

edit: I wouldn't be suprised either if XBench doesn't work correctly with the 4 cores of the Quad yet either.

[d.perel]

That's what I thought too, but I just tested my Dual 2.3 and I got 115.
Does anyone know what some comparative mac or pc setups get?

[iGary]

They just changed the scoring in the software - my dual 2.7 used to get in the 260's and just now got 124 something.

Seems like the quad would blow the dual 2.7 out of the water. A Cinebench would be better, me thinks.

Whatever. :)

[iGary]

For example:

Gary Reich's iMac G5 156.42 iMac (Flat Panel) 2004-11-02 14:55:43.0
Gary Reich's iMac G5 152.28 iMac (Flat Panel) 2004-12-27 13:45:22.0
Gary Reich's iMac G5 155.70 iMac (CRT) 2005-03-04 10:32:45.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 69.78 PowerMac G4 (Sawtooth) 2003-11-20 11:25:21.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 135.86 PowerMac G4 (MDD) 2003-11-20 15:04:31.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 134.24 PowerMac G4 (MDD) 2003-11-20 15:08:53.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 135.84 PowerMac G4 (MDD) 2003-11-20 15:59:39.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 135.84 PowerMac G4 (MDD) 2003-11-20 16:03:13.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 137.33 PowerMac G4 (MDD) 2003-11-20 16:38:36.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 130.30 PowerMac G4 (MDD) 2003-11-24 20:11:24.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 69.13 PowerMac G4 (Sawtooth) 2003-12-04 12:44:59.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 141.95 PowerMac G4 (MDD) 2004-03-16 18:32:06.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 141.16 PowerMac G4 (MDD) 2004-09-15 17:06:19.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 139.72 PowerMac G4 (MDD) 2004-10-04 17:37:37.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 140.87 PowerMac G4 (MDD) 2004-10-07 14:17:39.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 101.30 iBook (White) 2004-10-29 12:20:46.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 101.82 iBook (White) 2004-10-29 12:29:32.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 101.94 iBook (White) 2004-11-02 12:25:53.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 135.05 PowerMac G4 (MDD) 2004-12-15 19:47:10.0
Gary Reich’s iMac G5 156.98 iMac (Flat Panel) 2005-05-09 12:41:24.0
Gary Reich’s Power Mac G4 137.04 PowerMac G4 (MDD) 2005-05-02 20:18:02.0
Gary Reich’s Power Mac G5 267.48 PowerMac G5 (Orig) 2005-09-01 17:50:31.0
Gary Reich’s Power Mac G5 268.28 PowerMac G5 (Orig) 2005-08-13 12:52:26.0
Gary Reich’s Power Mac G5 269.37 PowerMac G5 (Orig) 2005-07-14 18:22:15.0
Gary Reich’s Power Mac G5 271.43 PowerMac G5 (Orig) 2005-07-16 03:49:40.0
Gary Reich’s Power Mac G5 260.94 PowerMac G5 (Orig) 2005-07-29 16:09:26.0
Gary Reich’s Power Mac G5 124.87 PowerMac G5 (June 2004) 2005-11-10 12:02:37.0

[risc]

For comparison, my PowerBook (15" Alu) 1.25 G4 got a 102.80

Brian

Using which version of XBench? There is no way you got over 100 using the current version when the baseline 100 points is a dual 2 GHz G5 running Tiger.

http://www.xbench.com/Xbench_1.2.dmg

[Bear]

You need to make sure the same version of XBench was run on the systems you are comparing, otherwise the numbers are can be meaningless.

[jhu]

why don't we run benchmarks with linpack? that way we can also compare results with supercomputers.

[zakatov]

I believe the latest version's baseline is: dual 2Ghz = 100 Xbench points.

EDIT: "Re-calibrated 100 point baseline to a 2.0 GHz G5 running Tiger"

Now the real question is whether Xbench is hitting all the CPUs hard enough, or whether the bottleneck is elsewhere.

[p0intblank]

Do the Photoshop test. I'm really interested in the results! :D

[zakatov]

Do the Photoshop test. I'm really interested in the results! :D
Yea, Xbench scores mean nothing at this point

[darthkuru]

i thought the bus speed on the quad 2.5s was 1.25? it says 1.0 GHz in the results.

[themacman]

For comparison, my PowerBook (15" Alu) 1.25 G4 got a 102.80

Brian
how much ram do you have? i ahve a new 15'' and 512 ddr2 and it gets a lot lower

[risc]

i thought the bus speed on the quad 2.5s was 1.25? it says 1.0 GHz in the results.

XBench probably has no idea how to correctly benchmark a quad, that is why this thread is pretty pointless. What I'd like to see from the OP is pictures of the machine, and get his comments on how it "feels".

[risc]

how much ram do you have? i ahve a new 15'' and 512 ddr2 and it gets a lot lower

Of course it does, no PowerBook will get over 100 using XBench 1.2 the guy is using an old version.

[merman637]

by comparison my 867 Powermac Quicksilver scored a whopping 29.53 on the same xbench test


I'm no genius but I'm thinking this is pretty darn fast.

my stats
Results 29.53
System Info
Xbench Version 1.2
System Version 10.4.3 (8F46)
Physical RAM 1024 MB
Model PowerMac3,5
Processor PowerPC G4 @ 867 MHz
Version 7450 (V'ger) v2.1
L1 Cache 32K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 256K @ 867 MHz
L3 Cache 2048K @ 217 MHz
Bus Frequency 134 MHz
Video Card GeForce2 MX
Drive Type WDC WD800JB-00CRA1
CPU Test 28.56
GCD Loop 65.91 3.47 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 18.38 436.77 Mflop/sec
vecLib FFT 32.47 1.07 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 25.19 4.39 Mops/sec
Thread Test 34.78
Computation 32.78 664.13 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 37.05 1.59 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 18.67
System 30.75
Allocate 75.83 278.47 Kalloc/sec
Fill 29.38 1428.67 MB/sec
Copy 19.87 410.40 MB/sec
Stream 13.40
Copy 13.03 269.04 MB/sec [altivec]
Scale 13.56 280.14 MB/sec [altivec]
Add 13.19 281.00 MB/sec [altivec]
Triad 13.86 296.46 MB/sec [altivec]
Quartz Graphics Test 39.83
Line 35.79 2.38 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 36.21 10.81 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 36.31 2.96 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 45.24 1.14 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 49.21 3.08 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 49.51
Spinning Squares 49.51 62.81 frames/sec
User Interface Test 18.82
Elements 18.82 86.37 refresh/sec
Disk Test 46.97
Sequential 58.13
Uncached Write 36.18 22.21 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 78.95 44.67 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 62.01 18.15 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 80.80 40.61 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 39.41
Uncached Write 14.54 1.54 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 76.40 24.46 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 91.30 0.65 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 114.91 21.32 MB/sec [256K blocks]

P.S. if you wanna know how fast it is, just run xbench on your own computer instead of bi***ing about how useless this information is.
Do I have to come up with all the bright ideas?

[Chaszmyr]

XBench probably has no idea how to correctly benchmark a quad, that is why this thread is pretty pointless. What I'd like to see from the OP is pictures of the machine, and get his comments on how it "feels".

That's not the problem. It also reported 1ghz on my machine.

[macbaseball]

For comparison, my PowerBook (15" Alu) 1.25 G4 got a 102.80

Brian

I agree with the previous posters. Your score sounds really high.

[ThinkingMac]

For comparison, my PowerBook (15" Alu) 1.25 G4 got a 102.80

Brian

That makes your PowerBook faster than a dual 2.0 G5 PM, so you won't want a new laptop for about ten years...
:cool:

[risc]

That's not the problem. It also reported 1ghz on my machine.

I guess that just goes to prove that XBench is completely useless? ;)

[AidenShaw]

why don't we run benchmarks with linpack? that way we can also compare results with supercomputers.
LINPACKD doesn't use AltiVec...

[agnasd]

Wow, my 1.8ghz G5 iMac went down to a 48, I need to get a new computer, its obsolete

[risc]

Wow, my 1.8ghz G5 iMac went down to a 48, I need to get a new computer, its obsolete

I hear that I was getting 210-215 on this box then I installed a new video card and ran the latest version and my score dropped to 90-95.

[GroundLoop]

For comparison, my PowerBook (15" Alu) 1.25 G4 got a 102.80

Brian

Not possible...here is what my 15' 1.25GHz PB scored...

Results 43.91
System Info
Xbench Version 1.2
System Version 10.4.3 (8F46)
Physical RAM 1024 MB
Model PowerBook5,2
Processor PowerPC G4 @ 1.25 GHz
L1 Cache 32K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.25 GHz
Bus Frequency 167 MHz
Video Card ATY,RV350M10
Drive Type Hitachi HTS548080M9AT00
CPU Test 51.89
GCD Loop 108.18 5.70 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 34.77 826.12 Mflop/sec
vecLib FFT 72.96 2.41 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 39.41 6.86 Mops/sec
Thread Test 54.73
Computation 53.50 1.08 Mops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 56.02 2.41 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 32.18
System 35.62
Allocate 118.06 433.57 Kalloc/sec
Fill 32.30 1570.46 MB/sec
Copy 22.33 461.20 MB/sec
Stream 29.34
Copy 28.76 594.01 MB/sec [altivec]
Scale 27.65 571.25 MB/sec [altivec]
Add 30.60 651.78 MB/sec [altivec]
Triad 30.56 653.73 MB/sec [altivec]
Quartz Graphics Test 58.45
Line 51.92 3.46 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 59.54 17.78 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 60.42 4.93 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 67.90 1.71 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 54.89 3.43 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 68.24
Spinning Squares 68.24 86.56 frames/sec
User Interface Test 36.62
Elements 36.62 168.05 refresh/sec
Disk Test 31.54
Sequential 54.12
Uncached Write 51.69 31.74 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 47.45 26.85 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 72.42 21.19 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 50.81 25.54 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 22.25
Uncached Write 7.92 0.84 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 41.01 13.13 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 63.60 0.45 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 74.39 13.80 MB/sec [256K blocks]

[QCassidy352]

xbench is notoriously inconsistant and meaningless... but it's nice that they're shipping.

and as noted for people who see their scores *sharply* dropping, it's because the baseline (100) used to be a dual G4 @ 800 mhz, and they reset it so now 100 = dual G5 @ 2.0 Ghz.

[rashdown_online]

Results 36.97
System Info
Xbench Version 1.2
System Version 10.4.3 (8F46)
Physical RAM 1024 MB
Model PowerBook5,2
Processor PowerPC G4 @ 1.00 GHz
L1 Cache 32K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.00 GHz
Bus Frequency 167 MHz
Video Card ATY,RV350M10
Drive Type FUJITSU MHT2060AT
CPU Test 38.77
GCD Loop 83.82 4.42 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 23.56 559.88 Mflop/sec
vecLib FFT 57.36 1.89 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 31.88 5.55 Mops/sec
Thread Test 42.72
Computation 41.61 842.97 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 43.89 1.89 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 26.93
System 29.75
Allocate 89.70 329.42 Kalloc/sec
Fill 25.98 1263.13 MB/sec
Copy 19.54 403.53 MB/sec
Stream 24.60
Copy 24.27 501.30 MB/sec [altivec]
Scale 23.91 493.96 MB/sec [altivec]
Add 24.99 532.39 MB/sec [altivec]
Triad 25.29 540.97 MB/sec [altivec]
Quartz Graphics Test 50.82
Line 45.21 3.01 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 49.27 14.71 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 49.40 4.03 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 57.53 1.45 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 54.52 3.41 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 57.26
Spinning Squares 57.26 72.64 frames/sec
User Interface Test 30.43
Elements 30.43 139.65 refresh/sec
Disk Test 30.31
Sequential 42.28
Uncached Write 37.04 22.74 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 36.33 20.56 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 65.70 19.23 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 40.23 20.22 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 23.62
Uncached Write 9.48 1.00 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 35.17 11.26 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 51.93 0.37 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 61.84 11.48 MB/sec [256K blocks]



To be honest, though, I DON'T CARE as I've just powered up my nice new 23" Cinema HD and am transfixed to the quality . And running dual screen will have to do me until I get a nice new Dual-Core/Dual-Proc MacIntel. (Hurry up Apple - I lose interest in things quite quickly no matter how nice stuff is!!!) :rolleyes:

[ThinkingMac]

PB 1.5 with 2 gig, 128 meg video ram, 5,400 rpm HD Tiger 10.4.3


Results 46.33
System Info
Xbench Version 1.2
System Version 10.4.3 (8F46)
Physical RAM 2048 MB
Model PowerBook5,4
Processor PowerPC G4 @ 1.50 GHz
L1 Cache 32K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.50 GHz
Bus Frequency 167 MHz
Video Card ATY,RV360M11
Drive Type TOSHIBA MK8026GAX
CPU Test 62.26
GCD Loop 125.00 6.59 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 41.79 993.03 Mflop/sec
vecLib FFT 88.45 2.92 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 47.59 8.29 Mops/sec
Thread Test 67.01
Computation 64.39 1.30 Mops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 69.86 3.01 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 28.70
System 31.89
Allocate 157.34 577.79 Kalloc/sec
Fill 29.40 1429.28 MB/sec
Copy 18.62 384.65 MB/sec
Stream 26.08
Copy 24.90 514.34 MB/sec [altivec]
Scale 24.78 512.02 MB/sec [altivec]
Add 27.16 578.65 MB/sec [altivec]
Triad 27.75 593.57 MB/sec [altivec]
Quartz Graphics Test 65.32
Line 57.81 3.85 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 68.67 20.50 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 68.79 5.61 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 78.79 1.99 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 57.28 3.58 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 81.63
Spinning Squares 81.63 103.55 frames/sec
User Interface Test 37.50
Elements 37.50 172.10 refresh/sec
Disk Test 32.21
Sequential 67.63
Uncached Write 59.51 36.54 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 58.89 33.32 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 107.90 31.58 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 62.15 31.24 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 21.14
Uncached Write 7.21 0.76 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 44.43 14.22 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 61.31 0.43 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 85.16 15.80 MB/sec [256K blocks]
:eek:

[macrumors12345]

151...thats it?

XBench was rescaled, so 100 now equals a Dual 2 Ghz G5. 151 is a pretty good score then, esp considering that the QUad-G5 is being "weighed down" by a lot of XBench tasks that are single threaded or only measure memory, video card, or hard disk performance.

That being said, I really wish ppl with access to new machines (Quad G5, Macintel, etc) would run something more informative than XBench. XBench is almost worse than running nothing at all. At the very least, s/he could run Cinebench on the quad-G5. That's readily available at http://www.cinebench.com/ and at least it's testing a real application. It's even easier to run than XBench. It's basically just stressing FP performance, but it's still better than nothing at all (or XBench).

[merman637]

I just ran more tests on my 867 PowerMac G4,
results (for those of you yelling inconsistent results!)
1st pass - 29.53
2nd pass - 30.21
3rd pass - 30.33

seems fairly consistent to me...considering you cant be sure of what processes, network lag, etc, is occuring while you run these tests...

seems pretty darn quick - especially since this 867 is still a sweet machine for work (graphic design), of course, I always want something faster!

[allpar]

Dual G4-1.25 (post G5 machine)
Total 47.32 - but the hard drive was the real killer. Disk test, 23.28 - uncahced write, 6.7!

Graphics 62, OpenGL 78, User Interface 56, memory 35, Thread 90, CPU 53

[Bartleby84]

I'm surprised nobody's pointed out the bench marks from the other Dual Core G5s out there now. Check out Mac360's results here (http://www.mac360.com/index.php/mac360/more/early_benchmarks_dual_core_g5_vs_old_dual_25ghz_g5/). Specifically, I'm amazed (although maybe not too surprised) at the thread test results-
Dualcore 2.0: 96.91
Dualcore 2.3: 113.74
Dual Dualcore 2.5: 246.38!
Oh, I can't wait for those MP aware Photoshop benchmarks. *drool*

[odo]

I would be very interested to see a Cinebench score of the quad

http://www.cinebench.com/

CINEBENCH is the free benchmarking tool for Windows and Mac OS based on the powerful 3D software CINEMA 4D. The tool is set to deliver accurate benchmarks by testing not only a computer's raw processing speed but also all other areas that affect system performance such as OpenGL, multithreading, multiprocessors and Intel's new HT Technology.

CINEBENCH includes render tasks that test the performance of up to 16 multiprocessors on the same computer as well as software-only shading tests and OpenGL shading tests on huge numbers of animated polygons that will push any computer to its limits.

On this site is a great comparison of all types of PC's and Macs

http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/cbtop.php

[groovebuster]

CPU Test 51.89
GCD Loop 108.18 5.70 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 34.77 826.12 Mflop/sec
vecLib FFT 72.96 2.41 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 39.41 6.86 Mops/sec


I guess this means that Xbench is really onpy testing 1 CPU... Here ist the result for my customized QS with DP1.3GHz G4 Proc Upgrade card from sonnet:

System Info
Xbench Version 1.2
System Version 10.4.3 (8F46)
Physical RAM 1536 MB
Model PowerMac3,5
Processor PowerPC G4x2 @ 1.30 GHz
Version 7455 (Apollo) v3.3
L1 Cache 32K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 256K @ 600 MHz
L3 Cache 2048K @ 120 MHz
Bus Frequency 134 MHz
Video Card ATY,RV250
Drive Type Maxtor 6Y120L0
CPU Test 53.69
GCD Loop 117.58 6.20 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 35.37 840.34 Mflop/sec
vecLib FFT 75.74 2.50 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 40.78 7.10 Mops/sec

[digitalpoint]

Wait... screw the benchmarks. How come he has his already? Mine (ordered right away) still shows an estimated ship date of November 21.

[plinden]

I think the most interesting benchmark is:

Computation 252.23 5.11 Mops/sec, 4 threads

If dual 2.0 is 100, you would expect dual 2.5 to be 125, hence quad 2.5 to be 250 ...

[iGary]

I'm surprised nobody's pointed out the bench marks from the other Dual Core G5s out there now. Check out Mac360's results here (http://www.mac360.com/index.php/mac360/more/early_benchmarks_dual_core_g5_vs_old_dual_25ghz_g5/). Specifically, I'm amazed (although maybe not too surprised) at the thread test results-
Dualcore 2.0: 96.91
Dualcore 2.3: 113.74
Dual Dualcore 2.5: 246.38!
Oh, I can't wait for those MP aware Photoshop benchmarks. *drool*

Nice to see my 2.7 isn't that far behind. :rolleyes: :p :D :eek:

[liketom]

Nice to see my 2.7 isn't that far behind. :rolleyes: :p :D :eek: like it matters when you got that screen of yours to stare at
;)

EDIT: CHECK THIS OUT --

http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/merge.xhtml?doc1=140697

[jiggie2g]

Xbench should just crawl in some hole and die.

I think a cross platform benchmakr should be used such as Cinebench , or a Photoshop Filter/Render test.

for the Record My X2 3800 @ 2ghz scores 532 in Cinebench
@ 2.5ghz scores 659 in Cinebench.

I'd like to see some Post!!!!

[skunk]

My 1.2GHz Cube (35+) already works faster than I do.

[rlwimi]

For the first time in Apple's history we are looking at a regression in chip technology over the next year from this point on - assuming Intel can even get something usable out next year.

Massively cheaper and faster quad systems and it is all being thrown out the door. Thank you Jobs you idiot. Go play with your iPods and find someone competent to run the desktop hardware side of the company.

It is going to be embarrassing to have to listen to him try to spin his was through the performance and feature drop that will come when the first garbage Intel desktops show up. Sickening.

[liketom]

For the first time in Apple's history we are looking at a regression in chip technology over the next year from this point on - assuming Intel can even get something usable out next year.

Massively cheaper and faster quad systems and it is all being thrown out the door. Thank you Jobs you idiot. Go play with your iPods and find someone competent to run the desktop hardware side of the company.

It is going to be embarrassing to have to listen to him try to spin his was through the performance and feature drop that will come when the first garbage Intel desktops show up. Sickening.


where has this come from ???

if dual 2.0 is benchmark of 100 then this is pretty dam quick !

whats the problem:o

[eAspenwood]

My hope is that they back-pedal from the intel only stance, and take on both chips in the long term plans.

that would require a massive swallowing of pride and probably other business factors, so it probably won't happen.

Anyways, I can't wait to buy some used quad g5's on the cheap in a couple years...

-- J.

[Butts M Biggilo]

Load MacOS 7.6 running Photoshop 3, PageMaker, and Simpletext at full throttle, all the while printing several Finder windows.

What could a poor Quad do?
Butts

[ShnikeJSB]

Xbench should just crawl in some hole and die.

I think a cross platform benchmakr should be used such as Cinebench , or a Photoshop Filter/Render test.

for the Record My X2 3800 @ 2ghz scores 532 in Cinebench
@ 2.5ghz scores 659 in Cinebench.

I'd like to see some Post!!!!

Wow, multi-processors kick @$$ in that benchie! I just downloaded and ran Cinebench 2003 for kicks, with all my typical processes running and without a restart, and got a 283 for single CPU (on my Inspiron XPS Gen 2 with Pentium-M at 2.13GHz).

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Josh Barrie

Processor : Inspiron XPS Gen 2
MHz : 2130
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : WIndows XP Pro SP2

Graphics Card : Nvidia Geforce 6800 Ultra Go OC'ed
Resolution : 1920x1200
Color Depth : 32-bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 283 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 335 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1489 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 4281 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 12.80

****************************************************

[camomac]

I'm surprised nobody's pointed out the bench marks from the other Dual Core G5s out there now. Check out Mac360's results here (http://www.mac360.com/index.php/mac360/more/early_benchmarks_dual_core_g5_vs_old_dual_25ghz_g5/). Specifically, I'm amazed (although maybe not too surprised) at the thread test results-
Dualcore 2.0: 96.91
Dualcore 2.3: 113.74
Dual Dualcore 2.5: 246.38!
Oh, I can't wait for those MP aware Photoshop benchmarks. *drool*

if my Rev.B dual processor 2.0 is the base (i assume Rev.B) then that means that it is actually FASTER than the dualcore 2.0.???

[cgc]

For comparison, my PowerBook (15" Alu) 1.25 G4 got a 102.80

Brian
It may have gotten a 102.80 on an older version of XBench, but the new XBench shows 1.25GHz PB with >1GB of RAM scoring around 43.

For comparison, a dual 2GHz G5 scores about 100.

Check for yourself: http://www.xbench.com

[anthonymoody]

That's a very impressive result overall for the dual dual (taking into account of course that the scale has been recalibrated). My mini (1.42, gig ram, 7200rpm external fw boot drive) now scores in the high 43's. 4x that seems pretty good to me :D

TM

[galstaph]

Kicks butt on my "new" iBook
(Using latest xbench version)
Results 34.44
System Info
Xbench Version 1.2
System Version 10.4.3 (8F46)
Physical RAM 512 MB
Model PowerBook6,7
Processor PowerPC G4 @ 1.33 GHz
L1 Cache 32K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.33 GHz
Bus Frequency 134 MHz
Video Card ATY,M12
Drive Type FUJITSU MHV2060AT
CPU Test 46.13
GCD Loop 106.43 5.61 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 30.76 730.88 Mflop/sec
vecLib FFT 76.15 2.51 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 31.58 5.50 Mops/sec
Thread Test 54.36
Computation 50.17 1.02 Mops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 59.32 2.55 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 22.86
System 24.77
Allocate 93.11 341.94 Kalloc/sec
Fill 25.19 1224.92 MB/sec
Copy 14.15 292.28 MB/sec
Stream 21.22
Copy 21.04 434.48 MB/sec [altivec]
Scale 20.81 429.90 MB/sec [altivec]
Add 21.48 457.47 MB/sec [altivec]
Triad 21.57 461.41 MB/sec [altivec]
Quartz Graphics Test 48.84
Line 44.89 2.99 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 46.64 13.93 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 46.25 3.77 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 60.14 1.52 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 48.97 3.06 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 62.76
Spinning Squares 62.76 79.62 frames/sec
User Interface Test 21.24
Elements 21.24 97.46 refresh/sec
Disk Test 27.83
Sequential 43.83
Uncached Write 38.01 23.34 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 36.97 20.92 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 70.55 20.65 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 42.14 21.18 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 20.39
Uncached Write 7.03 0.74 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 55.04 17.62 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 50.72 0.36 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 62.31 11.56 MB/sec [256K blocks]

Seems like I'm one of the slow pokes to this benchmark. If the quad scores THAT much higher, than it must be like lightning, my lappy seems pretty fast to me... (OK my lappy is faster than my other computers and my bro's PB (1ghz), but not as fast as his new iMac 17" g5)

[imnoah]

Yeah I would like to see it next to a duel 2.7

This is one of my pet peeves.

All together now...... DUAL DUAL DUAL DUAL DUAL DUAL

[merman637]

ok well...ran cinebench on my 867, and got a 63...
seems around the same to me...
63 vs 370
29 vs 120

wow...so much better

[Tupring]

Not sure how fast 151.86 on Xbench is. Any real world tests using everyday apps such as Shake?

Sounds great if the quads can run 70-80% faster than the dual-cores.The quads ARE dual-core.

[macorama]

You'd think the xServe Cluster Node would be all over a desktop machine, but with half the L2 cache, only 2 cores vs. 4, and a slower frontside bus it's way behind. Surely the Powermacs must be canabalising the xServe market for those who need true high performance? The xServe only starts to make sense if you start having space problems, and then the xServe is a winner.

Hopefully Quad Core xServes aren't far off!

[cr2sh]

This is one of my pet peeves.

All together now...... DUAL DUAL DUAL DUAL DUAL DUAL

Yeh... but the shoot out would be a duel!

XBench results for the dual 2.7 are median ~120.

If the quad is clocking 151.6, then we've got about a 25% boost from the 2.7...

That said, the dual 2.5's average around a 105. A 50% boost...

If we apply that same jump... the quad 2.7 would jump a 180.

I dunno... but the results are pretty much what I expected.. but not what I had hoped.

:)

[Kairy]

For the first time in Apple's history we are looking at a regression in chip technology over the next year from this point on - assuming Intel can even get something usable out next year.

Massively cheaper and faster quad systems and it is all being thrown out the door. Thank you Jobs you idiot. Go play with your iPods and find someone competent to run the desktop hardware side of the company.

It is going to be embarrassing to have to listen to him try to spin his was through the performance and feature drop that will come when the first garbage Intel desktops show up. Sickening.


There is no doubt that desktop computers will keep getting faster and more powerful regardless of the cpu manufacturer.
Apple has always adopted new technology , and dragged the entire market after them. (scsi, firewire, pci-e, ...)
(how about an AMD mac ? sounds cool to me)

The real deal has been, and will forever be Software !

I think we should give Jobs credit for constantly keeping Apple's desktop operating systems a quantum leap ahead of their competetors.

If you need more processing power, you can always use J.D Lowry's solution :D
http://www.apple.com/pro/film/lowry/index2.html

[KEL9000]

My hope is that they back-pedal from the intel only stance, and take on both chips in the long term plans.

that would require a massive swallowing of pride and probably other business factors, so it probably won't happen.

Anyways, I can't wait to buy some used quad g5's on the cheap in a couple years...

-- J.


have you noticed apple has stopped comparing powermacs to intels and are comparing new G5s to old G5s.

please Stevo use the pentium Ms for laptops but let us keep the G5.

[alien]

if my Rev.B dual processor 2.0 is the base (i assume Rev.B) then that means that it is actually FASTER than the dualcore 2.0.???

I sure hope that isn't true... I'm getting a new dual core 2. I don't see how it can get a slower score when all the tests that I've seen show the new Dual Core 2 beating the old Dual Processor 2. (not by a whole lot, but still beating it)

[Lacero]

The quads ARE dual-core.
Yeah, dual dual-cores. :D

But we like to call them quads, less confusing.


//the word DUAL has lost all meaning!!!
///*hides in corner sobbing.

[nick007]

Using Photoshop CS or CS2 (or PS 7)
==================================================
1.) Download the test image from http://www.quicklance.com/test.jpg
2.) Save it to the computer and then open it up in Photoshop
3.) From there please apply a ‘radial blur’ with the settings at:
Amount = 100
Blur Method = Spin
Quality = Best
Using a stop watch / ps timer see how long it takes to apply this filter
I just want to see what these new cpu’s can really do.

Results:
iMac G5 1.8GHz, 1GB - 2:00
Athlon XP3200+, 1GB - 2:15
Athlon64 4000+, 1GB - 1:25
Dual 2.5 Running 10.4.2 with 2.5 GB RAM 40 seconds
PowerMac Dual 2.7 Dell 2405 FPW, 2.5 gigs of ram, Radeon 9650 42 seconds
Dual Core 2.0 GHz G5 with 2.5GB ram Photoshop CS2 47.4 seconds

Quad 2.5GHz G5 2.5GB RAM 10.4.3 22 seconds !!!!! It's an amazing huh??!!!

[PPC970FX]

You'd think the xServe Cluster Node would be all over a desktop machine, but with half the L2 cache, only 2 cores vs. 4, and a slower frontside bus it's way behind. Surely the Powermacs must be canabalising the xServe market for those who need true high performance? The xServe only starts to make sense if you start having space problems, and then the xServe is a winner.

Hopefully Quad Core xServes aren't far off!

Nope with out the ECC mem that a powermac is lacking a Powermac will be suxy against a xserver in a cluster. And clusters are true high preformance.

[BornAgainMac]

This is one of my pet peeves.

All together now...... DUAL DUAL DUAL DUAL DUAL DUAL

What about if future Macs have 1 Intel and 1 PowerPC? Then have them duel each other.

[Mr. Anderson]

Xbench should just crawl in some hole and die.

I think a cross platform benchmakr should be used such as Cinebench , or a Photoshop Filter/Render test.

for the Record My X2 3800 @ 2ghz scores 532 in Cinebench
@ 2.5ghz scores 659 in Cinebench.

I'd like to see some Post!!!!


Nice thing about those is that they use real apps for the test. The guys with the Quads should download Cinebench and take it for a spin - that would say something, I imagine.

http://www.cinebench.com/

there is a PC, OSX and OSX G5 Optimized - someone should do this.

D

[p0intblank]

Using Photoshop CS or CS2 (or PS 7)
Results:
iMac G5 1.8GHz, 1GB - 2:00
Athlon XP3200+, 1GB - 2:15
Athlon64 4000+, 1GB - 1:25
Dual 2.5 Running 10.4.2 with 2.5 GB RAM 40 seconds
PowerMac Dual 2.7 Dell 2405 FPW, 2.5 gigs of ram, Radeon 9650 42 seconds
Dual Core 2.0 GHz G5 with 2.5GB ram Photoshop CS2 47.4 seconds

Quad 2.5GHz G5 2.5GB RAM 10.4.3 22 seconds !!!!! It's an amazing huh??!!!

How do you know all this? Do you have a Quad? If these results are true.. my God. :eek:

[melgross]

Nope with out the ECC mem that a powermac is lacking a Powermac will be suxy against a xserver in a cluster. And clusters are true high preformance.

If you go to the Apple store, you will see the ECC mem for the Express PMac's.

[daveL]

Nope with out the ECC mem that a powermac is lacking a Powermac will be suxy against a xserver in a cluster. And clusters are true high preformance.
The new PowerMacs can be ordered with ECC memory as an option.

[melgross]

How do you know all this? Do you have a Quad? If these results are true.. my God. :eek:

Yeah, but take dual Athlons and you can cut those numbers almost in half as well.

2.00 =1:10
1:15 =0:45

What would a Quad Opteron do with 4 channels to memory from the built-in controller?

[GregA2]

My Mac Mini 1.42 scored a 37.75 on Xbench

[Pie]

Using which version of XBench? There is no way you got over 100 using the current version when the baseline 100 points is a dual 2 GHz G5 running Tiger.

http://www.xbench.com/Xbench_1.2.dmg

Hello everybody... these are my benchmarks. The machine arrived tuesday 8th november 5.00pm UK time.

I DID USE THE LATEST VERSION OF XBENCH (1.2)

How does this thing feel? Well, it's relative. At home i've been using a 15" 1.25 powerbook and in work i use a dual 1.25 G4 powermac.

This thing feels lightening. there's 3BG Ram in it. I will be using it mainly for ProTools LE usage. I'm waiting for the upgrade to 7 (maybe weekend before I can give it a proper shake down)

:)

[BakedBeans]

Hello everybody... these are my benchmarks. The machine arrived tuesday 8th november 5.00pm UK time.

I DID USE THE LATEST VERSION OF XBENCH (1.2)

How does this thing feel? Well, it's relative. At home i've been using a 15" 1.25 powerbook and in work i use a dual 1.25 G4 powermac.

This thing feels lightening. there's 3BG Ram in it. I will be using it mainly for ProTools LE usage. I'm waiting for the upgrade to 7 (maybe weekend before I can give it a proper shake down)

:)

ay chance of a cinebench test bud?

[Pie]

ay chance of a cinebench test bud?

Sure...

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Pie

Processor : Quad G5
MHz : 2.5 GHZ
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : 10.4.2

Graphics Card : GeForce 6600
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 359 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 1016 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 2.83

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 353 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1051 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1871 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.29

****************************************************


Does this make any sense to anybody?

[pknz]

I just did a Xbench test on my Rev B iMac and got 70.93, so I'm guessing the PowerMac Quad is quite a substantial increase in XBench Performance not just on paper.

Although how credible Xbench tests are is another story.
Edit: Just redid the test with Safari open and got a differing score, although I gues that can be expected

[jhu]

LINPACKD doesn't use AltiVec...

if you go by the ground rules they've laid out on top500.org, you can't change the source code, but you can use compiler optimizations to achieve vectorization (i don't know how vectorizable the code is). the second test, 1000d, seems to be more flexible, so perhaps explicit vector optimizations can be coded in.

[BRLawyer]

Seems pretty darn fast, even though I don't trust in XBench...

Just as an idea, my Rev. B iMac G5 (see signature) in Automatic speed setting and running Safari and Network Utility gave a score of 67.93...

[obione]

Cinbench. xCPU =580
Photoshop test =0:45 sec
xBench =110

[nxent]

For comparison, my PowerBook (15" Alu) 1.25 G4 got a 102.80

Brian

102.8 is based on the old xbench system... they recalibrated everything so a dual 2Ghz G5 was about 100 (something like that), so 151.8 should be pretty fast-

[Mr. Anderson]

Sure...

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Pie

Processor : Quad G5
MHz : 2.5 GHZ
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : 10.4.2

Graphics Card : GeForce 6600
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 359 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 1016 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 2.83

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 353 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1051 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1871 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.29

****************************************************


Does this make any sense to anybody?


Now we need to get someone with a dual 2.7 to run the same thing - anyone?

D

[dontmatter]

For example:

Gary Reich's iMac G5 156.42 iMac (Flat Panel) 2004-11-02 14:55:43.0
Gary Reich's iMac G5 152.28 iMac (Flat Panel) 2004-12-27 13:45:22.0
Gary Reich's iMac G5 155.70 iMac (CRT) 2005-03-04 10:32:45.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 69.78 PowerMac G4 (Sawtooth) 2003-11-20 11:25:21.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 135.86 PowerMac G4 (MDD) 2003-11-20 15:04:31.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 134.24 PowerMac G4 (MDD) 2003-11-20 15:08:53.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 135.84 PowerMac G4 (MDD) 2003-11-20 15:59:39.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 135.84 PowerMac G4 (MDD) 2003-11-20 16:03:13.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 137.33 PowerMac G4 (MDD) 2003-11-20 16:38:36.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 130.30 PowerMac G4 (MDD) 2003-11-24 20:11:24.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 69.13 PowerMac G4 (Sawtooth) 2003-12-04 12:44:59.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 141.95 PowerMac G4 (MDD) 2004-03-16 18:32:06.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 141.16 PowerMac G4 (MDD) 2004-09-15 17:06:19.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 139.72 PowerMac G4 (MDD) 2004-10-04 17:37:37.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 140.87 PowerMac G4 (MDD) 2004-10-07 14:17:39.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 101.30 iBook (White) 2004-10-29 12:20:46.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 101.82 iBook (White) 2004-10-29 12:29:32.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 101.94 iBook (White) 2004-11-02 12:25:53.0
Gary Reich’s Computer 135.05 PowerMac G4 (MDD) 2004-12-15 19:47:10.0
Gary Reich’s iMac G5 156.98 iMac (Flat Panel) 2005-05-09 12:41:24.0
Gary Reich’s Power Mac G4 137.04 PowerMac G4 (MDD) 2005-05-02 20:18:02.0
Gary Reich’s Power Mac G5 267.48 PowerMac G5 (Orig) 2005-09-01 17:50:31.0
Gary Reich’s Power Mac G5 268.28 PowerMac G5 (Orig) 2005-08-13 12:52:26.0
Gary Reich’s Power Mac G5 269.37 PowerMac G5 (Orig) 2005-07-14 18:22:15.0
Gary Reich’s Power Mac G5 271.43 PowerMac G5 (Orig) 2005-07-16 03:49:40.0
Gary Reich’s Power Mac G5 260.94 PowerMac G5 (Orig) 2005-07-29 16:09:26.0
Gary Reich’s Power Mac G5 124.87 PowerMac G5 (June 2004) 2005-11-10 12:02:37.0

Holy crap, you need a less computer centric world. That's a LOT of computers. Even if you bought at a good deal and sold at a good price.

[Pie]

Right, I've just run the Horse Photohop Radial Blur Speed Test.

Result...

19.2 seconds

:)

[AidenShaw]

Apple has always adopted new technology , and dragged the entire market after them. (scsi, firewire, pci-e, ...)
SATA? PCs first. DDR? PCs first. DDR2? PCs first. USB? PCs first. USB2? PCs first. ADC? Nobody else used it.

PCIe? Apple is last with PCI Express, it's been common in PCs for a year or more. (Apple did drop PCI, though, much to the chagrin of people with an investment in PCI cards and no PCIe replacements around.)

1394? Never really caught on in the PC market, and now even Apple is giving it a cool shoulder.

[AidenShaw]

if you go by the ground rules they've laid out on top500.org, you can't change the source code, but you can use compiler optimizations to achieve vectorization (i don't know how vectorizable the code is). the second test, 1000d, seems to be more flexible, so perhaps explicit vector optimizations can be coded in.
It has nothing to do with the rules - AltiVec simply doesn't support 64-bit floating point. (SSE does, however)

[sephirot]

Other cinebench marks:

http://www.barefeats.com/g5c.html

Dual G5 2.5 Ghz -- 633
Dual Opteron 2 Ghz -- 523

See yourself.

Andy

PS: Man, where is my Quad G5? Still shows a shipping date of 30. Nov. I want it now!! :mad:

[steve_hill4]

Not that this is too important in the grand scheme of things, but I just tested my AMD on CineBench and got the following:

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Stevie

Processor : AMD Athlon 2600+
MHz : 2.09GHz
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Windows XP Professional

Graphics Card : GeForce 4600 128MB
Resolution : 1280x1024
Color Depth : 32-bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 210 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 241 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 165 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 102 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 0.68

****************************************************

Not sure what people would think of this 2.5 year old AMD system I was running it on, especially as I was actually running more than I would normally, but I am still impressed to this day what it can cope with. Comparing the rendering alone with the 2.13GHz Pentium-M, (which scored 283), I don't think AMD fare too badly, do they? I seriously hope Apple consider them in a few years if intel don't meet the standard we hope they do.

[Peace]

Don't know if it's already been said because I skipped to the last page but.
Keep in mind XBench 1.2 is a universal binary.
It's built to run on Intel and Mac so there "could be" some errors.

[macpro2000]

I know that the whole Xbench thing surely has to be messed up, otherwise it's basically close to 50% increase in speed over a Dual 2 (4GHz). Now linearly only a Dual 3 (6GHz) would be 50% faster than the Dual 2...so surely Quad 2.5s (10GHz) would be more than 50% faster.

[melgross]

Don't know if it's already been said because I skipped to the last page but.
Keep in mind XBench 1.2 is a universal binary.
It's built to run on Intel and Mac so there "could be" some errors.

I think that there were *always* errors.
:)

[Peace]

I think that there were *always* errors.
:)

Hey! Just tryin to be nice ;)

[shewhorn]

Hi folks, I'm excited to see if the architecture of Photoshop is such that it can take advantage of more than two processors. So far it would appear that with this one filter the answer is definitely yes. I would also be interested in knowing what the performance is for single threaded filters? Does the increased scheduling load of 4 processors actually slow down a single threaded filter relative to a dual 2.5 PM (I doubt it, scheduling is a problem as you add more processors but 4 processors shouldn't introduce much of a burden at all), will there be a huge difference in performance (I guessing no for single threaded filters) or will it be slightly faster (this is my expectation due to the faster memory bus, you'll see slightly faster results for single threaded apps)?

Anyhow for those interested here's another data point.

Pentium 4 @ 3.2 GHz (Prescott D stepping), clocks in at 61.4 seconds.

Cheers, Joe

[Fiveos22]

Right, I've just run the Horse Photohop Radial Blur Speed Test.

Result...

19.2 seconds

:)


:eek: Damn.

[rickvanr]

For reference, my Dual 2.7 scores 130+ (http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/merge.xhtml?doc2=137613)

Also note the Quad that was tested had 8GB of memory, and memory speeds up Xbench tests.

Now we need to get someone with a dual 2.7 to run the same thing - anyone?

D


I'll do it..

[Lacero]

:eek: Damn.Yeah. Looks like once we get quad 3.0Ghz machines, I'm upgrading my current Power Mac. That I promised myself.

However, with the intels on their way, my plans for upgrading have been thrown a monkey wrench. What to do? What to do.

[Pie]

Yeah. Looks like once we get quad 3.0Ghz machines, I'm upgrading my current Power Mac. That I promised myself.

However, with the intels on their way, my plans for upgrading have been thrown a monkey wrench. What to do? What to do.

What swung it for me was the fact I didn't want to wait for compliant dual binaries to install on the Intels. And those rumblings of on-chip DRM.

:cool:

[EdwinSneller]

Here is my Dual 2.7 Cinebench score:

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : sneller

Processor : PowerMac G5 Dual
MHz : 2.7
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.2

Graphics Card : ATI 9650 256MB
Resolution : 1680x1050
Color Depth : millions

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 385 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 663 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.72

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 359 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1028 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1736 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.83

****************************************************

[rickvanr]

Ok, how does Cinebench work? Don't take this seriously, I have no idea how Cinebench works.

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Rick

Processor : PowerMac G5
MHz : 2.7 (2)
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.2

Graphics Card : 6800 Ultra
Resolution : 1920 x 1200
Color Depth : Millions

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 294 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 537 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.82

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 341 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 904 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1490 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.37

****************************************************

[JoeBeCrazy]

how much ram do you have? i ahve a new 15'' and 512 ddr2 and it gets a lot lower

Yea i have the New Powerbook 15" 1.67" with 2GB ram... i get way lower than that.

[steve_hill4]

Yeah. Looks like once we get quad 3.0Ghz machines, I'm upgrading my current Power Mac. That I promised myself.

However, with the intels on their way, my plans for upgrading have been thrown a monkey wrench. What to do? What to do.
A lot of professional Mac users, (music business, video editing), have said the best machine to get is the quad 2.5 as it should last any user for a good 3 years. A quad 3.0 would do the same job, but get released just before the intel switch, (assuming two more upgrades before 2.5>2.7>3.0), so you would be looking at buying late next year, early 2007 and replace with a MacIntel in 2010.

I don't think there are currently sufficient advantages with the intel over G5 ranges, G4 yes, G5 no. Not sure what intel's roadmap holds for the period of 2007-2010, but can't see too much that would theoretically beat a quad 3.0.

[EdwinSneller]

FYI: it took Photoshop CS2 40 seconds to spin the horse on my Dual 2.7 GHz.

[melgross]

I know that the whole Xbench thing surely has to be messed up, otherwise it's basically close to 50% increase in speed over a Dual 2 (4GHz). Now linearly only a Dual 3 (6GHz) would be 50% faster than the Dual 2...so surely Quad 2.5s (10GHz) would be more than 50% faster.

I don't know. If you look at Macworlds tests they show the same thing.

My own PS tests on numerous machines also show that.

One machine I upgraded recently is a Digital Audio 733MHz G4, 256KB L2, 1MB L3.

Upgraded to dual 1.8GHz 7447a's.

Some tests

45MB photo

733MHz
Sharpen 100% R1, T2 = 6 sec
Resample 2x = 5
Gauss Blur 10 pix = 13
" 50 " = 15
Rotate 90' clock = 5
" 45' " = 15
" 5' " = 11


dual 1.8 GHz

sharpen = 4 sec
resample = 3
Gauss = 6
" = 7
Rotate = 3
" = 7
" = 5

Yes, it's the same bus. But it isn't RAM limited it's at 100% efficiency. 1.5GB RAM. ATI 9800 card.

The surprising thing is that my dual 2GHz is only about 35% faster than the dual, but I don't seem to have the numbers.

What is frustrating is that Macworld's numbers give the dual 2.7's a Speedmark score of 248, but the Mini with it's 1.25 G4 and slow memory bus is now 100!

so a dual 2.7 is only 2.5 times faster than a low end Mini.

Time for reflection.
:confused:

[risc]

...I DID USE THE LATEST VERSION OF XBENCH (1.2)...


Pie why did you reply to me with this? My you can't get over 100 comments are about a guy with a 15" PowerBook. I like everyone here doesn't doubt that a quad will beat a dual 2.0, maybe you should of read my post before replying?

For comparison, my PowerBook (15" Alu) 1.25 G4 got a 102.80

Brian

[magor]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester :

Processor : G5
MHz : 2.7
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.3

Graphics Card : X800
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 378 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 643 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.7

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 354 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 956 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1995 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.64

****************************************************

[Pie]

Pie why did you reply to me with this, my you can't get over 100 comments are about a guy with a 15" PowerBook. I like everyone here doesn't doubt that a quad will beat a dual 2.0, maybe you should of read my post before replying?

You're absolutely right.
I need to open my eyes and spend less time speed reading (that's an oxymoron isn't it?)

be cool,
Pie

[MacEyeDoc]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : omeyemo

Processor : G4 PowerBook
MHz : 1.25 GHz
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : 10.4.2

Graphics Card : ATI Mob Rad 9600
Resolution : 1280 x 854
Color Depth : Millions

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 113 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 139 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 388 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 783 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.63

****************************************************

[gmnygts]

Now we need to get someone with a dual 2.7 to run the same thing - anyone?

D

If some people are wondering about their 1st gen PMG5
my old machine:

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : gmnygts

Processor : dual 2.0 rev. A
MHz : 2.0 GHZ
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.3

Graphics Card : ATI 850xt
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 286 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 514 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.79x

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 276 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 820 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1436 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.20x

****************************************************
using Pie's numbers to calculate times(x) faster, using my machine as baseline;
Rendering (Single CPU): 1.255 faster
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 1.976 faster

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 1.278 faster
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1.281 faster
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1.302 faster

glen

[plinden]

Just to throw in a PC cinebench test, on a machine running lots of other stuff and not restarted:
CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : plinden

Processor : Thinkpad T41p
MHz : 1600 (Banias Core)
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Windows XP Professional SP1

Graphics Card : ATI Mobility Fire GL 9000
Resolution : 1280x1028
Color Depth : 32-bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 188 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 187 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 810 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1429 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 7.63

****************************************************

[MacEyeDoc]

****************************************************
using Pie's numbers to calculate times(x) faster, using my machine as baseline;
Rendering (Single CPU): 1.255 faster
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 1.976 faster

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 1.278 faster
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1.281 faster
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1.302 faster

glen[/QUOTE]


And the Quad G5 is 8.99 times (you could call it 900% faster) than my PowerBook. Wow! Gotta get me one of those!

[Bartleby84]

if my Rev.B dual processor 2.0 is the base (i assume Rev.B) then that means that it is actually FASTER than the dualcore 2.0.???
The numbers I was quoting were just for the thread testing, and your systems should be comparable, if slightly faster. In the dual processor system, each processor is served by it's own independent bus, where as in the dual core system, both cores have to share a single bus. I'm not certain how much of an impact that would have on threads, but it's possible. Overall, however, the dual core systems are marginally faster than the dual processor systems at the same clock rate, primarily due to faster RAM and graphics cards, I think.

[MacEyeDoc]

All you lucky ducks with the new Quads:

How is the noise level compared to what you had before? I assume it is liquid cooled. There was a comment made somewhere that because Apple wasn't describing them as "whisper quiet" on their web site they were louder. Hope we don't have to go back into the "wind tunnel" to experience that 900% speed improvement. (Somebody tell me my math is off - could I really be able to purchase a 900% increment in speed?)

[EricNau]

Using Photoshop CS or CS2 (or PS 7)
==================================================
1.) Download the test image from http://www.quicklance.com/test.jpg
2.) Save it to the computer and then open it up in Photoshop
3.) From there please apply a ‘radial blur’ with the settings at:
Amount = 100
Blur Method = Spin
Quality = Best
Using a stop watch / ps timer see how long it takes to apply this filter
I just want to see what these new cpu’s can really do.

Results:
iMac G5 1.8GHz, 1GB - 2:00
Athlon XP3200+, 1GB - 2:15
Athlon64 4000+, 1GB - 1:25
Dual 2.5 Running 10.4.2 with 2.5 GB RAM 40 seconds
PowerMac Dual 2.7 Dell 2405 FPW, 2.5 gigs of ram, Radeon 9650 42 seconds
Dual Core 2.0 GHz G5 with 2.5GB ram Photoshop CS2 47.4 seconds

Quad 2.5GHz G5 2.5GB RAM 10.4.3 22 seconds !!!!! It's an amazing huh??!!!
Has anybody on a PC tried this? If so, I am very curious to hear the results. I would love to compare my iMac with my friends PC's, but I don't want to risk them beating me. :o What are your thoughts? Should I risk it?
My iMac (see sig) scored 1:50 using this photoshop test

[doodguy]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : doodguy

Processor : Power Mac G5
MHz : 2.7 GHz
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.3

Graphics Card : ATI 9650
Resolution : 1920 x 1200
Color Depth : 32-bit Color

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 384 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 645 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.68

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 362 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 970 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1673 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.62

****************************************************

[aussie_geek]

Look at that memory fill rate - over 8GB / sec!!! :eek:

[AidenShaw]

Has anybody on a PC tried this?

I would love to compare my iMac with my friends PC's, but I don't want to risk them beating me. :o What are your thoughts? Should I risk it?
Why should you care about losing a test of one Photoshop filter on one single image?

It doesn't really mean anything other than how fast you can radial blur the horse.

[nospleen]

My new imac got a 72.8. (i still have stock ram, my 1GB stick has not arrived.)

[Nikore]

I ran all three test on the desktop in my sig.

Xbench:

Results 117.66
System Info
Xbench Version 1.2
System Version 10.4.3 (8F46)
Physical RAM 4096 MB
Model PowerMac7,3
Processor PowerPC G5x2 @ 2.70 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 2.70 GHz
Bus Frequency 1 GHz
Video Card GeForce 6800 Ultra
Drive Type HD
CPU Test 133.91
GCD Loop 135.73 7.15 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 136.23 3.24 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 136.13 4.49 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 127.92 22.28 Mops/sec
Thread Test 137.80
Computation 139.79 2.83 Mops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 135.87 5.85 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 106.18
System 103.85
Allocate 139.65 512.85 Kalloc/sec
Fill 133.13 6472.91 MB/sec
Copy 70.34 1452.86 MB/sec
Stream 108.62
Copy 107.24 2215.00 MB/sec [G5]
Scale 107.64 2223.77 MB/sec [G5]
Add 110.16 2346.74 MB/sec [G5]
Triad 109.51 2342.61 MB/sec [G5]
Quartz Graphics Test 133.97
Line 133.90 8.91 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 132.20 39.47 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 134.45 10.96 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 129.42 3.26 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 140.38 8.78 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 149.17
Spinning Squares 149.17 189.23 frames/sec
User Interface Test 125.97
Elements 125.97 578.14 refresh/sec
Disk Test 75.50
Sequential 147.06
Uncached Write 199.56 122.53 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 182.43 103.22 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 85.46 25.01 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 199.73 100.38 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 50.79
Uncached Write 18.70 1.98 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 117.38 37.58 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 100.82 0.71 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 146.30 27.15 MB/sec [256K blocks]


CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Nikore

Processor : PowerMac G5
MHz : 2.7 GHz
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.3

Graphics Card : 6800 Ultra
Resolution : 1600x1200
Color Depth : Milions

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 383 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 666 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.74

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 364 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1059 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1631 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.48

****************************************************


And lastly photoshop test (my stopwatch/photoshop's timer)

42.6/49.2


Conclusion: Quad > * :p

[gmnygts]

****************************************************
using Pie's numbers to calculate times(x) faster, using my machine as baseline;
Rendering (Single CPU): 1.255 faster
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 1.976 faster

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 1.278 faster
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1.281 faster
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1.302 faster

glen


And the Quad G5 is 8.99 times (you could call it 900% faster) than my PowerBook. Wow! Gotta get me one of those![/QUOTE]

i believe that something is wrong with the CINEBENCH test that Pie ran

there should NOT be a 1.976 faster on the Rendering (Multiple CPU)
-- my approximation would be around 3.9 to 3.95 faster

glen

[EricNau]

Why should you care about losing a test of one Photoshop filter on one single image?

It doesn't really mean anything other than how fast you can radial blur the horse.

Quite Simply: If I were to lose to them, I would never hear the end of it, but I need a way to prove to them that my computer is faster. I just switched 6 months ago and all of them are convinced that Apple's are slow ("Only 2.0 GHx?").

[nospleen]

iGary, have you tried the photoshop test? I cannot believe the Quad did it in 19.2. That is just nuts!!!!

[EricNau]

iGary, have you tried the photoshop test? I cannot believe the Quad did it in 19.2. That is just nuts!!!!
Do you mean the Horse Photoshop Test?
If so, it wouldn't be that outrageously fast. My 2 GHz G5 iMac took 1:50. Divide 1:50 by 4 (assuming the Quad is 4x faster) and you get 27.5 seconds. If that computer had a better graphics card or more RAM, I would say it could easily do it in about 20 seconds.

[ANIM8R]

To those who received their Quads: did you pull the trigger on your order the second the store was back up? :)

I'm going to go to the Apple store tomorrow to order one, myself. Anyone else seeing them arriving early?

[barneygumble]

I think i remember igary's taking 28.7 seconds

[Chrissyboy]

Hi Pie, & all - you can compare Cinebench results for many systems here:

http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/cbtop.php

In summary, the rendering score is excellent, only beaten by the Quad Opterons, it beats the Quad Xeon which is nice :p

However the OpenGL score is disappointing to say the least - no problem if you're not involved in 3D apps (or games...) but if you are, the score quoted here is roughly the same as a G5 Dual with a GeForce 6800 Ultra - or a Pentium M Centrino (ie, a laptop :eek: ) running a Radeon 9000 M. Oh dear...

C

Sure...

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Pie

Processor : Quad G5
MHz : 2.5 GHZ
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : 10.4.2

Graphics Card : GeForce 6600
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 359 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 1016 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 2.83

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 353 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1051 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1871 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.29

****************************************************


Does this make any sense to anybody?

[JRM PowerPod]

Just to throw in a PC cinebench test, on a machine running lots of other stuff and not restarted:
CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : plinden

Processor : Thinkpad T41p
MHz : 1600 (Banias Core)
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Windows XP Professional SP1

Graphics Card : ATI Mobility Fire GL 9000
Resolution : 1280x1028
Color Depth : 32-bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 188 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 187 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 810 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1429 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 7.63

****************************************************

VS MY Beautiful (MAC OSX) Laptop

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : jazmac

Processor : 12" Powerbook
MHz : 1.5ghz
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : OS X

Graphics Card : GFX 5200 64mb
Resolution : 1024X768
Color Depth : 32bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 133 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 159 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 424 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 700 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.40

****************************************************



IT GOT KILLED!!!!!!!

But the day i use windows again....... hehe ..... likely

Try this benchmark
XP vs OSX
hmmmm......

The PowerBook stil wins in my opinion.

But people..... wait till the PowerBook's have the same chips as the ThinkPads. That will be a good day

I HAVE TO WAIT TILL THE 29/12 Until i can benchmark my QUAD.... Wonder hat the shading will look like with the Quadro in it. Interesting.... Or even the 7800

[herocero]

i figured this would be the best place to post this question.

the old g5 PM: each processor had it's own link to the system bus. so two processors, two buses, right? the ratio between cores:system links is 1:1.

new dual core g5 PM: 1 dual core proc has 1 link to the system bus. now instead of each core having a link, the ratio between cores:system links is 2:1.

is my logic right here? is this the right systems design? i am by no means an expert, but i do remember my fractions and if the system communication is how i remember it, isn't a dual core g5 at similar clocks as a single core not much to write home about (comparatively speaking)? not the best worded question, but i think i get my point across.

[sephirot]

Hi Pie, & all - you can compare Cinebench results for many systems here:

http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/cbtop.php

In summary, the rendering score is excellent, only beaten by the Quad Opterons, it beats the Quad Xeon which is nice :p

However the OpenGL score is disappointing to say the least - no problem if you're not involved in 3D apps (or games...) but if you are, the score quoted here is roughly the same as a G5 Dual with a GeForce 6800 Ultra - or a Pentium M Centrino (ie, a laptop :eek: ) running a Radeon 9000 M. Oh dear...

C

As you can see from the list, when comparing OpenGL performance between Windows an Mac OSX boxes with similar graphic cards, the Windows boxes are about 2x faster. It's a known problem that OpenGL is way better optimized on Windows. No hardware in the world will help you there.

regards
Andy

[Mr. Anderson]

Any doubts I had on the quads are fading fast. I'm going to get one with the 7800 graphics card as soon as they're shipping - not really wanting to wait all that time - been there before and its a pain. And a week or two won't make that much difference to me, anyway.

D

[Sun Baked]

From ARS Tech (http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/8300945231/m/492002026731)

Not too scientific...

http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=3717

Compares a dual 2.5 machine which renders a modo 201 image in 38sec to a quad which does the same image in 17sec -- includes some movies of the render and load core load balancing.

Another modo 201 movie here

http://forums.luxology.com/discussion/topic.aspx?id=3912

Edit: First is a month old, Second more recent, might as well stick it in one quad benchmark thread.

[ANIM8R]

Any doubts I had on the quads are fading fast. I'm going to get one with the 7800 graphics card as soon as they're shipping - not really wanting to wait all that time - been there before and its a pain. And a week or two won't make that much difference to me, anyway.

D

I agree, the 7800GT sounds like the best all-around option, but for the sake of time I'm sticking to the 6600 for now. Time is a factor for me, and as of tonight the Apple store is sticking to the following shipping schedules:

6600 = 2-3 weeks (or apparently, NOW in the UK)
7800 = 6-8 weeks
4500 = 3-4 weeks

I think the 7800GT will make a great upgrade further down the line.

Sorry if this is OT. Still wondering: has anyone else received their Quad or been given an updated shipping date?

[Mr. Anderson]

I think the 7800GT will make a great upgrade further down the line.


For me, its going to be easier to get everything at once (extra memory as well, but not through apple) - and if the delay for the 7800 is still several weeks by the end of December, I might be ordering it anyway. We'll see.

D

[slooksterPSV]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

One of our Wales UK-based members has reported receiving his Power Mac G5 Quad (http://www.apple.com/powermac/) earlier in the week, and has run a preliminary set of Xbench benchmarks on it. While full details are in the forum thread, the overall score for the machine with 3 GB RAM running Mac OS X 10.4.2 weighs in at 151.86.
Oh I just read this and omg, Apple, IBM, and AMD, took the same route - HyperTransport =D. Way to go guys. You know how technology works. As for Intel, you're pathetic.... I mean I'll buy an IiMac or an IiBook or IPM or IPB or IMM - (Intel = I
MM = Mac-Mini (don't forget the - )) - not for the purpose of Intel, but keep an Apple close to my heart.
For all of those who can see ? you know what I mean:
???||???||???||?||||||???
?||?||?||?||?||?||?||||||?|||||
???||???||???||?||||||???
?||?||?||||||?|||||||?||||||?||||
?||?||?||||||?|||||||???||???

[weev]

For comparison, my PowerBook (15" Alu) 1.25 G4 got a 102.80

Brian

note the xbench 1.2 has recalibrated the 100 benchmark from xbench 1.13

(from a g4x2 @800Mhz to a g5x2 @2Ghz)

so my 1.8x2 g5 went from 190 to 62

[Chip NoVaMac]

Not possible...here is what my 15' 1.25GHz PB scored...

Results 43.91
System Info
Xbench Version 1.2
System Version 10.4.3 (8F46)
Physical RAM 1024 MB
Model PowerBook5,2
Processor PowerPC G4 @ 1.25 GHz
L1 Cache 32K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.25 GHz
Bus Frequency 167 MHz
Video Card ATY,RV350M10
Drive Type Hitachi HTS548080M9AT00
CPU Test 51.89
GCD Loop 108.18 5.70 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 34.77 826.12 Mflop/sec
vecLib FFT 72.96 2.41 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 39.41 6.86 Mops/sec
Thread Test 54.73
Computation 53.50 1.08 Mops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 56.02 2.41 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 32.18
System 35.62
Allocate 118.06 433.57 Kalloc/sec
Fill 32.30 1570.46 MB/sec
Copy 22.33 461.20 MB/sec
Stream 29.34
Copy 28.76 594.01 MB/sec [altivec]
Scale 27.65 571.25 MB/sec [altivec]
Add 30.60 651.78 MB/sec [altivec]
Triad 30.56 653.73 MB/sec [altivec]
Quartz Graphics Test 58.45
Line 51.92 3.46 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 59.54 17.78 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 60.42 4.93 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 67.90 1.71 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 54.89 3.43 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 68.24
Spinning Squares 68.24 86.56 frames/sec
User Interface Test 36.62
Elements 36.62 168.05 refresh/sec
Disk Test 31.54
Sequential 54.12
Uncached Write 51.69 31.74 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 47.45 26.85 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 72.42 21.19 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 50.81 25.54 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 22.25
Uncached Write 7.92 0.84 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 41.01 13.13 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 63.60 0.45 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 74.39 13.80 MB/sec [256K blocks]

Here is the scores I got from XBench with my iMac G5:

Results 139.58
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3
System Version 10.4.3 (8F46)
Physical RAM 1536 MB
Model PowerMac8,2
Processor PowerPC G5 @ 2.00 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 2.00 GHz
Bus Frequency 667 MHz
Video Card ATY,RV351
Drive Type Maxtor 7Y250M0
CPU Test 160.88
GCD Loop 95.18 3.72 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 287.55 1.04 Gflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 134.72 3.91 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 164.01 2.55 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 279.76 11.20 Mops/sec
Thread Test 84.17
Computation 57.40 774.94 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 157.70 1.98 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 218.61
System 250.99
Allocate 482.59 314.79 Kalloc/sec
Fill 330.82 2633.37 MB/sec
Copy 145.82 729.12 MB/sec
Stream 193.63
Copy 168.33 1230.49 MB/sec [G5]
Scale 169.42 1250.34 MB/sec [G5]
Add 217.87 1394.37 MB/sec [G5]
Triad 236.69 1446.18 MB/sec [G5]
Quartz Graphics Test 153.05
Line 144.99 3.69 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 153.40 10.79 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 162.00 3.73 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 140.99 1.53 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 167.03 2.72 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 138.73
Spinning Squares 138.73 97.08 frames/sec
User Interface Test 229.18
Elements 229.18 73.71 refresh/sec
Disk Test 106.69
Sequential 113.61
Uncached Write 148.56 61.93 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 98.45 40.32 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 116.86 18.50 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 102.43 41.39 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 100.56
Uncached Write 119.74 1.80 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 140.51 31.69 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 77.29 0.51 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 87.96 18.10 MB/sec [256K blocks]


On the face of it, it seems that I did well in not "wasting" money for this "hot" new PM G5 Quad...

[Mr. Anderson]

Here is the scores I got from XBench with my iMac G5:



On the face of it, it seems that I did well in not "wasting" money for this "hot" new PM G5 Quad...


Run the Cinebench and see what you get....

D

[nospleen]

Here is the scores I got from XBench with my iMac G5:



On the face of it, it seems that I did well in not "wasting" money for this "hot" new PM G5 Quad...


Are you sure you ran the latest version of XBench?? If 100 is what a dual 2.0 should get, then you must not be running the latest version? My new imac scored a 72? (yours is a 2.0 with more ram, but that is pretty high) If you did run the newest Xbench, then you have a bad a$$ imac. :D

[cgratti]

Results 63.88
System Info
Xbench Version 1.2
System Version 10.4.3 (8F46)
Physical RAM 1280 MB
Model PowerMac8,1
Processor PowerPC G5 @ 1.80 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.80 GHz
Bus Frequency 600 MHz
Video Card GeForce FX 5200
Drive Type WDC WD1600JD-40GBB2
CPU Test 81.81
GCD Loop 64.91 3.42 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 89.51 2.13 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 92.40 3.05 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 87.01 15.15 Mops/sec
Thread Test 49.80
Computation 45.85 928.79 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 54.51 2.35 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 63.53
System 62.00
Allocate 84.62 310.77 Kalloc/sec
Fill 66.55 3235.84 MB/sec
Copy 46.42 958.87 MB/sec
Stream 65.12
Copy 64.27 1327.42 MB/sec [G5]
Scale 64.56 1333.72 MB/sec [G5]
Add 66.13 1408.62 MB/sec [G5]
Triad 65.58 1402.88 MB/sec [G5]
Quartz Graphics Test 92.75
Line 82.76 5.51 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 82.44 24.61 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 82.15 6.70 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 82.92 2.09 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 183.08 11.45 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 90.33
Spinning Squares 90.33 114.59 frames/sec
User Interface Test 62.26
Elements 62.26 285.75 refresh/sec
Disk Test 42.33
Sequential 57.56
Uncached Write 47.43 29.12 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 40.91 23.15 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 87.88 25.72 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 79.48 39.95 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 33.47
Uncached Write 11.86 1.26 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 72.17 23.11 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 82.05 0.58 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 109.27 20.28 MB/sec [256K blocks]

[Chip NoVaMac]

Run the Cinebench and see what you get....

D

There was a hint of sarcasm in my post since XBench is so poor overall. All about the version run and all. In fact when I ran this test I was running Safari, Calendar, iTunes, Address Book, Mail, Calculator, and Azureus!

Are you sure you ran the latest version of XBench?? If 100 is what a dual 2.0 should get, then you must not be running the latest version? My new imac scored a 72? (yours is a 2.0 with more ram, but that is pretty high) If you did run the newest Xbench, then you have a bad a$$ imac. :D

Note that the version of XBench is 1.1.3! It was what I had used to test the differences between my PB 1ghz and my newer iMac.

At least IMO a benchmark program should be such that one should not have to retest an older system with a newer version of the benchmark program.

[rickvanr]

Are you sure you ran the latest version of XBench?? If 100 is what a dual 2.0 should get, then you must not be running the latest version? My new imac scored a 72? (yours is a 2.0 with more ram, but that is pretty high) If you did run the newest Xbench, then you have a bad a$$ imac. :D

It's version 1.1.3..

[Abstract]

yeah, Xbench 1.1.X is worthless right now. The Photoshop tests and Cinebench scores mean more.
However, this thread is so messed up right now. I mean, there's benchmarks of various sorts posted everywhere! No info on RAM or the type of video card provided by some. Who can compare systems well without this extra bit of info?

And why post about PB Xbench scores? We're trying to see who has the biggest peepee right now, nothing more. ;)

Quite Simply: If I were to lose to them, I would never hear the end of it, but I need a way to prove to them that my computer is faster. I just switched 6 months ago and all of them are convinced that Apple's are slow ("Only 2.0 GHx?").

Who cares.

[bbyrdhouse]

Using Photoshop CS or CS2 (or PS 7)
==================================================
1.) Download the test image from http://www.quicklance.com/test.jpg
2.) Save it to the computer and then open it up in Photoshop
3.) From there please apply a ‘radial blur’ with the settings at:
Amount = 100
Blur Method = Spin
Quality = Best
Using a stop watch / ps timer see how long it takes to apply this filter
I just want to see what these new cpu’s can really do.

Results:
iMac G5 1.8GHz, 1GB - 2:00
Athlon XP3200+, 1GB - 2:15
Athlon64 4000+, 1GB - 1:25
Dual 2.5 Running 10.4.2 with 2.5 GB RAM 40 seconds
PowerMac Dual 2.7 Dell 2405 FPW, 2.5 gigs of ram, Radeon 9650 42 seconds
Dual Core 2.0 GHz G5 with 2.5GB ram Photoshop CS2 47.4 seconds

Quad 2.5GHz G5 2.5GB RAM 10.4.3 22 seconds !!!!! It's an amazing huh??!!!

My Powerbook G4 15" 1.67 took exactly 2:01 on the above instructions.
I am usung CS2 compared to the iMac G5 1.8GHz, 1GB - 2:00
and Athlon XP3200+, 1GB - 2:15 I feel pretty good about my Powerbook.

I am so glad I bought when I did.
But I will be ordering a Quad in December. BTW can someone explain to me the diff in ECC ram and Non-Ecc ram and why one is so much more expensive than the other?

[jiggie2g]

Using Photoshop CS or CS2 (or PS 7)
==================================================
1.) Download the test image from http://www.quicklance.com/test.jpg
2.) Save it to the computer and then open it up in Photoshop
3.) From there please apply a ‘radial blur’ with the settings at:
Amount = 100
Blur Method = Spin
Quality = Best
Using a stop watch / ps timer see how long it takes to apply this filter
I just want to see what these new cpu’s can really do.

Results:
iMac G5 1.8GHz, 1GB - 2:00
Athlon XP3200+, 1GB - 2:15
Athlon64 4000+, 1GB - 1:25
Dual 2.5 Running 10.4.2 with 2.5 GB RAM 40 seconds
PowerMac Dual 2.7 Dell 2405 FPW, 2.5 gigs of ram, Radeon 9650 42 seconds
Dual Core 2.0 GHz G5 with 2.5GB ram Photoshop CS2 47.4 seconds

Quad 2.5GHz G5 2.5GB RAM 10.4.3 22 seconds !!!!! It's an amazing huh??!!!


Running Photoshop CS2 on my PC

Athlon X2 3800+ @ 2.1ghz took 39 sec , gimmie a few i will post at @2.5ghz


Update: 32.5 sec at @2.5ghz ...Imperial G5 Destroyer strikes again..hehe

[shooterlv]

Has anybody on a PC tried this? If so, I am very curious to hear the results. I would love to compare my iMac with my friends PC's, but I don't want to risk them beating me. :o What are your thoughts? Should I risk it?
My iMac (see sig) scored 1:50 using this photoshop test
Lie :)

[jiggie2g]

Cinebench 2003

Athlon X2 3800+@2.5Ghz

Rendering(1 CPU) 354 CB-CPU

Rendering(x CPU) 659 CB-CPU

[EricNau]

Who cares.
It drives me crazy! You can insult me, but don't insult me computer! ;)



Lie

Now there's an idea! :)

[JRM PowerPod]

that photoshop test took 2:34.9 seconds or 154.9secs making the Quad 7 times faster than this PowerBook... hmmmmm

[Lacero]

Load MacOS 7.6 running Photoshop 3, PageMaker, and Simpletext at full throttle, all the while printing several Finder windows.

What could a poor Quad do?
Wow. I just noticed you signed up 3 years ago, but haven't made a single post until recently.

Just wondering.

[jiggie2g]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester :

Processor : G5
MHz : 2.7
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.3

Graphics Card : X800
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 378 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 643 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.7

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 354 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 956 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1995 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.64

****************************************************


CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester :

Processor : Athlon X2 3800+
MHz : 2500
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Windows XP Pro SP2
Graphics Card : Nvidia 7800GT
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 354 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 659 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.86

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 406 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1927 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 4350 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 10.72

****************************************************

God I Love my Rig ...7800GT is a Beast

Imperial G5 Destroyer Strikes again.:D

[p0intblank]

I got a 41.09 on my PowerBook G4. This is odd, though... when I first got my PowerBook and ran Xbench, I got 124.49. I had 1 GB of RAM before, but I doubt that would cuase such a big difference in scores. Either I have some maintenance to do on my Mac or the last version of Xbench runs the test differently than the newer one does. I just downloaded the newest version tonight, so do you think that could have caused the difference in scores? I'm upgrading to 1.5 GB of RAM soon, so that will definitely help.

It's such a huge difference, though... :eek:

[slooksterPSV]

Using Photoshop CS or CS2 (or PS 7)
==================================================
1.) Download the test image from http://www.quicklance.com/test.jpg
2.) Save it to the computer and then open it up in Photoshop
3.) From there please apply a ‘radial blur’ with the settings at:
Amount = 100
Blur Method = Spin
Quality = Best
Using a stop watch / ps timer see how long it takes to apply this filter
I just want to see what these new cpu’s can really do.

Results:
iMac G5 1.8GHz, 1GB - 2:00
Athlon XP3200+, 1GB - 2:15
Athlon64 4000+, 1GB - 1:25
Dual 2.5 Running 10.4.2 with 2.5 GB RAM 40 seconds
PowerMac Dual 2.7 Dell 2405 FPW, 2.5 gigs of ram, Radeon 9650 42 seconds
Dual Core 2.0 GHz G5 with 2.5GB ram Photoshop CS2 47.4 seconds

Quad 2.5GHz G5 2.5GB RAM 10.4.3 22 seconds !!!!! It's an amazing huh??!!!


My iBook in my siggy w/Photoshop CS 2 did it in 2:40 - tried again and it did it in 2:32 - min:sec

[JRM PowerPod]

I got a 41.09 on my PowerBook G4. This is odd, though... when I first got my PowerBook and ran Xbench, I got 124.49. I had 1 GB of RAM before, but I doubt that would cuase such a big difference in scores. Either I have some maintenance to do on my Mac or the last version of Xbench runs the test differently than the newer one does. I just downloaded the newest version tonight, so do you think that could have caused the difference in scores? I'm upgrading to 1.5 GB of RAM soon, so that will definitely help.

It's such a huge difference, though... :eek:

if you have a look back through the thread i think they are saying that the newer xbench makes a Dual 2Ghz G5 as 100 where as the older xbench used a Dual 800mhz G4. Thus the huge difference

[JRM PowerPod]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester :

Processor : Athlon X2 3800+
MHz : 2500
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Windows XP Pro SP2
Graphics Card : Nvidia 7800GT
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 354 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 659 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.86

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 406 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1927 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 4350 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 10.72

****************************************************

God I Love my Rig ...7800GT is a Beast

Imperial G5 Destroyer Strikes again.:D

Hopefully you have Norton

[contoursvt]

Photoshop spin test 29.6 seconds with stopwatch but 30.3 with photoshop timing tool

Cinebench 32 bit - 265 / 575
Cinebench 64 bit -304 / 646

The 64 bit numbers are from memory since I ran the test 3 days ago but I'm nearly certain thats what it came out to. I'll run it again and post the actual results. The gains from the 64 bit version were significant though.


My Box:

Dual Xeon 3.0 (nocona core) with hyperthreading on
Asus NCCH-DL motherboard
2 Gig DDR 400
ATI X800XT PE
dual channel U160 controller
3x 15k 36gig Fujitsu drives

[p0intblank]

if you have a look back through the thread i think they are saying that the newer xbench makes a Dual 2Ghz G5 as 100 where as the older xbench used a Dual 800mhz G4. Thus the huge difference

Alright, that's cool. That makes me feel much better. :p

On a related note, how many points do you think I would gain after I upgrade to 1.5 GB of RAM?

[jiggie2g]

Hopefully you have Norton

Memory Hog norton hell no ..AVG Antivirus all the way , it's lite and clean.


Sounds like sour grapes on ur part...Enjoy your New Nuclear Powered Intel PowerMac Geeeee whatever..lol :D

[contoursvt]

I also agree... AVG all the way... It has virtually no performance impact.

[JRM PowerPod]

Memory Hog norton hell no ..AVG Antivirus all the way , it's lite and clean.


Sounds like sour grapes on ur part...Enjoy your New Nuclear Powered Intel PowerMac Geeeee whatever..lol :D

Thanks mate.... not sour grapes, just know how to get a (nuclear) reaction, i think though when my Quad arrives with its 4GB and its 7800 that my sarcasm will be replaced with an indestructable ego... That wont be until the 29/12, so i have a while yet. Enjoy ur Athlon, it is undoubtedly an impressive chip, but as i've said many times b4.... Windows=Pain in the arse... for me atleast... somehow 90% of the population survive

[Heb1228]

Alright, that's cool. That makes me feel much better. :p

On a related note, how many points do you think I would gain after I upgrade to 1.5 GB of RAM?
Increasing RAM will have little effect on xBench scores. Your real-world performance will improve dramatically, but benchmark scores probably won't move much at all.

[MacinDoc]

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester :

Processor : Athlon X2 3800+
MHz : 2500
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Windows XP Pro SP2
Graphics Card : Nvidia 7800GT
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 354 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 659 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.86

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 406 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1927 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 4350 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 10.72

****************************************************

God I Love my Rig ...7800GT is a Beast

Imperial G5 Destroyer Strikes again.:D
Let me see if I've got this right - you're bragging because your machine barely edges out the equivalent of the mid-range Power Mac (with a substantially inferior graphics card) in rendering? If you think your machine is superior, compare it with the top of the line...

[shewhorn]

Hi,

Would someone with a Quad be so kind as to run the Driver Heaven Photoshop tests?

http://www.driverheaven.net/photoshop/

Don't click the "download here"... scroll down a bit more or just search for "mac", there's a link to a Zip file instead of a rar file. Just follow the instructions on the web page. It's pretty easy. The download includes an image to use as well as an action that prompts you for each test.

If you want to submit your results to their database you can do so here:
http://www.driverheavendownloads.net/photoshop/submit.php

And if you want to see other results you can do so here:
http://www.driverheavendownloads.net/photoshop/results.php

The fastest Mac on there at the moment is a dual 2.7 GHz dual proc PM of course at a total of 201.7 seconds. Currently the time to beat is 128.9 seconds. My PC clocks in around 225 seconds (3.2 GHz P4). My PowerBook... can't remember what it does but it's not the fastest (were it not for one filter (can't remember the specific filter but I do remember that it's completely useless to a photogrpaher) my 15" 1.67 GHz G4 actually doesn't do all that bad keeping pace with a 1.7 GHz Pentium M based Dell).

Anyone wanna guess? My guess is 116.3 seconds for the Quad. LOL

Cheers, Joe

[Heb1228]

Let me see if I've got this right - you're bragging because your machine barely edges out the equivalent of the mid-range Power Mac (with a substantially inferior graphics card) in rendering? If you think your machine is superior, compare it with the top of the line...
I think he meant the video card, which does seem to perform better than the Quad's.

[rickvanr]

Increasing RAM will have little effect on xBench scores. Your real-world performance will improve dramatically, but benchmark scores probably won't move much at all.

I remember reading that more RAM in xbench effected the end result in a positive way.

[Heb1228]

I remember reading that more RAM in xbench effected the end result in a positive way.
As long as you have plenty of memory free when you run the test, it shouldn't have any effect.

When I upgraded my memory from 1GB to 2GB, I actually got a slightly worse xBench score because I bought cheaper RAM. (I checked and the RAM was the culprit for the lower scores.) After that, I sent back the cheap stuff and bought a stick of Samsung RAM to bring my machine up to 1.5GB. It gets the same scores as it did with 1GB.

[jiggie2g]

Thanks mate.... not sour grapes, just know how to get a (nuclear) reaction, i think though when my Quad arrives with its 4GB and its 7800 that my sarcasm will be replaced with an indestructable ego... That wont be until the 29/12, so i have a while yet. Enjoy ur Athlon, it is undoubtedly an impressive chip, but as i've said many times b4.... Windows=Pain in the arse... for me atleast... somehow 90% of the population survive


I agree Windows can be a pain for most , but people like myself who understand PC software can run it as stable as any mac. Congrats on the Quad i'm sure it will be a monster machine , honestly it's too much machine 4 me. I have my athlon and it's so damn fast I don't know what to do with it. I mostly just encode video and play games...and this thing is fast to the point of being rediculious i can just imagine the quad.

This time next year i'll be running a OSX on my PC.

I love Macs but I hate Apple's let's rip off the customer mentality , whenit comes to hardware. so enjoy your Quad, but you are going to cry in about 18 months when Intel and AMD put those chips into sub $1000 USD PC's. Just like they are doing now with the Dual cores.
and AMD have those chips in sub

[BOOMBA]

Yeah, but take dual Athlons and you can cut those numbers almost in half as well.

2.00 =1:10
1:15 =0:45

What would a Quad Opteron do with 4 channels to memory from the built-in controller?

and what would that cost?
:)

[jiggie2g]

Let me see if I've got this right - you're bragging because your machine barely edges out the equivalent of the mid-range Power Mac (with a substantially inferior graphics card) in rendering? If you think your machine is superior, compare it with the top of the line...


I wouldn't exactly call a Dual 2.7ghz G5 a mid end machine that was clocked 200mhz faster per CPU then my X2 and has 2 faster frontside buses and I still managed to spank it. :eek:

I'm not going to go up against a Quad (which by the way is not even shipping yet) Unless I have a Quad Opteron then we start The Armageddon. :D

Maybe I should dust off the old Athlon XP-M 2400+ @2.3ghz in my closet and give your PM G3 / iMac G5 a good trashing.:p

BTW: Here are some of my older CPU Cinebench 2003 scores

Athlon XP-M 2400+(Barton)@2.3ghz scored 263 CB-CPU

Athlon 64 3000+(Venice) @1.8ghz scored 293 CB-CPU , @2.6ghz / 356 CB-CPU

[melgross]

and what would that cost?
:)

It might not cost much more. But the performance might be worth it for longer jobs.

By the way, I am a Mac person. We have 5 working PM's in the house now, and I'll be getting a Quad in January.:)

Just like to be fair.

[BakedBeans]

This time next year i'll be running a OSX on my PC.

only illegally

[jiggie2g]

only illegally


Your point , Do u think most system builders paid $300 for XP Pro. I've seen more cracked XP Pro Discs passed around then AOL sign up discs. The Pirates are going to Increase OSX's market share more than anyone in the coming years.

Arrrr Matey there be cracked Tigers in the Bay (Hint Hint).:D

[trrosen]

i was expecting more to be truefull?



remember folks Xbench is a single thread test. only one core was used in this test.

[BakedBeans]

Your point that its illegal.


Do u think most system builders paid $300 for XP Pro. I've seen more cracked XP Pro Discs passed around then AOL sign up discs. The Pirates are going to Increase OSX's market share more than anyone in the coming years.

Arrrr Matey there be cracked Tigers in the Bay (Hint Hint).:D

:rolleyes:

[BakedBeans]

I wouldn't exactly call a Dual 2.7ghz G5 a mid end machine that was clocked 200mhz faster per CPU then my X2 and has 2 faster frontside buses and I still managed to spank it. :eek:

I'm not going to go up against a Quad (which by the way is not even shipping yet) Unless I have a Quad Opteron then we start The Armageddon. :D

Maybe I should dust off the old Athlon XP-M 2400+ @2.3ghz in my closet and give your PM G3 / iMac G5 a good trashing.:p

BTW: Here are some of my older CPU Cinebench 2003 scores

Athlon XP-M 2400+(Barton)@2.3ghz scored 263 CB-CPU

Athlon 64 3000+(Venice) @1.8ghz scored 293 CB-CPU , @2.6ghz / 356 CB-CPU

how much ram did he have in that dual 2.7? he had a worse video card for sure

its all very well bragging about online benchmarks but lets try some real world photoshop tests and see who is bragging?


I'm so looking forward to getting my quad with 7800.

[groovebuster]

Just for the fun of it, XP Laptop...

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : me

Processor : FSC Lifebook S6120
MHz : 1.6GHz
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Windows XP SP2

Graphics Card : Intel 82852/82855 GM/GME Graphics Controller
Resolution : 1024*768
Color Depth : 32bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 198 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 212 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 585 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 559 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 2.75

****************************************************


groovebuster

[Invizzible]

Xbench should never be used by anyone for anything. According to Xbench, my 1.4 Ghz G4 has an L3 cache running at 4.17 Ghz.

[Stridder44]

XBench is a horrible App! Why bother with it? Real world tests are where its at (unless something better comes along)

[MacHans]

here´s a cinebench from my Dell 3,2Ghz 512mb RAM, Intel Graphics Work Station, it´s fast but working with my PowerBook is much comfortable:
CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : hans

Processor : dell
MHz : 3,2
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : xp

Graphics Card : int
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 270 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 333 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.23

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 354 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 998 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 957 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 2.82

****************************************************

[Abstract]

I love Macs but I hate Apple's let's rip off the customer mentality , whenit comes to hardware. so enjoy your Quad, but you are going to cry in about 18 months when Intel and AMD put those chips into sub $1000 USD PC's. Just like they are doing now with the Dual cores.
and AMD have those chips in sub

Companies are going to put quad core into a sub $1000 USD PC?

Don't worry, people who bought one of the fastest computers on the market WILL be enjoying it. You may think it's expensive, but the fact that it's the fastest (or 2nd fastest....who knows) computer on the market makes it worth its price. If you do buy a $1000 PC, you're not getting the best, so its not even comparable. Its like comparing your Kia with a BMW.

Also, a quad core Opteron system costs $2000 to $3000 more than the quad core Mac with the same specs (although the RAM will be slightly slower in the quad core Opteron, despite the system costing a lot more). If you don't believe me, remember that Google is your friend. You'll find it.

[BakedBeans]

A w00t for Abstract!

[steebu]

Companies are going to put quad core into a sub $1000 USD PC?

not quite but...

http://www.londondrugs.com/Cultures/en-US/Product+Detail/Computers.htm?CatalogNavigationBreadCrumbs=Computers;Computers;PC%20Computer%20Systems;Desktop%20Sys tems;Certified%20Data%20CPD%20820%202.8%20Dualcore%20Desktop%20Computer&CS_Catalog=Computers&CS_RootCategory=Computers&CS_Category=Desktop%20Systems&CS_ProductID=1373984&ProductTab=1

[BakedBeans]

not quite but...

http://www.londondrugs.com/Cultures/en-US/Product+Detail/Computers.htm?CatalogNavigationBreadCrumbs=Computers;Computers;PC%20Computer%20Systems;Desktop%20Sys tems;Certified%20Data%20CPD%20820%202.8%20Dualcore%20Desktop%20Computer&CS_Catalog=Computers&CS_RootCategory=Computers&CS_Category=Desktop%20Systems&CS_ProductID=1373984&ProductTab=1

stonking graphic card on that thing!

unfortunately i have a rule when buying computers, if the same store sells 'food/candy' and has drugs in its name then i look elsewhere :)

[Pie]

Someone point me to a real world test and I'll give it a go.

Cheers,

Pie

[Lacero]

unfortunately i have a rule when buying computers, if the same store sells 'food/candy' and has drugs in its name then i look elsewhere :)It's not as bad as it looks. :D

[Henri Gaudier]

At first I was disappointed with the figures as it only showed an improvement of 38 % which was a lot less than the touted 50 - 80% but when I ran the XBench on my own set-up I realised it is a waste of time reading anything into these figures as I received a score of 140.55 on a rev B 1.8 iMac!

I' dropping XBench in the bin ....now!

[flashlight]

Here is my Dual 2.7 Cinebench score:

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : sneller

Processor : PowerMac G5 Dual
MHz : 2.7
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.2

Graphics Card : ATI 9650 256MB
Resolution : 1680x1050
Color Depth : millions

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 385 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 663 CB-CPU


****************************************************
my dual 2.7 with ATI x800 xt / 4 GB Ram was 702 CB-CPU

[steve_hill4]

Your point , Do u think most system builders paid $300 for XP Pro. I've seen more cracked XP Pro Discs passed around then AOL sign up discs. The Pirates are going to Increase OSX's market share more than anyone in the coming years.

Arrrr Matey there be cracked Tigers in the Bay (Hint Hint).:D
I bought my OEM copy of XP Pro a while back, same time as building my system, so must be in the minority, (already know I am in fact). In the next 6-12 months, I will probably be using Fedora Core 3 on my PC and running a PB alongside it, (with the PB being used more), but still keep XP Pro running alongside Fedora. Not going for the clean break, but more of a gradual switch.

Think when it comes to Vista though, a cracked disc will be very tempting for something I will use rarely.

[SpaceMagic]

Pie, i hear you're from wales! Me too :) I would so email you but you've blocked it on the forums!

Get in touch! My profile has the details!

Oh and to make this post relevant to the thread:

Those Cinebench scores are awesome. I would so buy a Quad if I had ANY money what so ever. Perhaps I could spend my student loan :p... but then I wouldn't be able to eat for 3 years.

Oh well... there are certain sacrifices we must make.

[steve_hill4]

Pie, i hear you're from wales! Me too :) I would so email you but you've blocked it on the forums!

Get in touch! My profile has the details!

Oh and to make this post relevant to the thread:

Those Cinebench scores are awesome. I would so buy a Quad if I had ANY money what so ever. Perhaps I could spend my student loan :p... but then I wouldn't be able to eat for 3 years.

Oh well... there are certain sacrifices we must make.
I don't think anyone could go as far as that. Perhaps a part-time job for the next few years would cover the two grand or so you would need to start off with. Unless you need the extra processing power from the Quad 2.5, I would say that there are cheaper Macs out there to satisfy most of our needs.

[Trekkie]

My hope is that they back-pedal from the intel only stance, and take on both chips in the long term plans.

that would require a massive swallowing of pride and probably other business factors, so it probably won't happen.

I've had this dream as well, but an Apple with Intel Inside on it is worth a lot of 'marketing' money to intel. the prices Apple would buy the notebook processors at vs. the other vendors would magically go up if they weren't buying it for all their system me guesses.

Also, the nightmare of having universal binaries for the third party vendors would probably kill that off, unfortunately.

[Trekkie]

I love Macs but I hate Apple's let's rip off the customer mentality , whenit comes to hardware. so enjoy your Quad, but you are going to cry in about 18 months when Intel and AMD put those chips into sub $1000 USD PC's. Just like they are doing now with the Dual cores.
and AMD have those chips in sub

No, I won't. Because I'll buy a dual socket quad core version and still be faster and more expensive.

The people that are going to cry are those that buy the sub $1000 multi-core system and it's about 3% faster than the previous generation system because of most applications out there won't know what to do with a multi-threaded processor.

Most of the benchmarks out there that are beautiful on the dual or better systems out there are multi-threaded.

But MS Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Quicken, whatever most regular non-power users use won't run any faster on a dual or quad core system because they don't know what to do with more execution units.

Gamers will be ticked because their machines will be slow...

Just my $0.02

[Butts M Biggilo]

As you can see from the list, when comparing OpenGL performance between Windows an Mac OSX boxes with similar graphic cards, the Windows boxes are about 2x faster. It's a known problem that OpenGL is way better optimized on Windows. No hardware in the world will help you there.

regards
Andy
->

Im not sure how to do this, Anyways... the Open GL is that you are comparing a 7800GTX and a 6600 on a Mac. There is obviously no comparison there.
Butts

[delton05]

I think these quad machine are made for those PPC people who just have to have bragging rights, now, until the Intel Macs come out, which would have to smoke the quads, else why would Apple go that way.

When we're all Intel fanboys, the people with expensive quads will feel weird having a machine that went obsolete so quickly. Still they're the early adopters who'll probably always have to have the latest and greatest. NOt me, not anymore, not when I add up what I've spent over the years playing that game...

Apple is just milking a small segment of its market, with always too much money to spend.

I doubt if any/much software which truly uses the quad PPC power will ever be written...for such a small, soon to be an always declining percentage of Mac users, as the Intel move takes hold.

I'm bewidered by those people enthusimg over a platform thats almost obsolete...the King is dead...long love the King.

[Mr. Anderson]

I think these quad machine are made for those PPC people who just have to have bragging rights, now, until the Intel Macs come out, which would have to smoke the quads, else why would Apple go that way.

When we're all Intel fanboys, the people with expensive quads will feel weird having a machine that went obsolete so quickly. Still they're the early adopters who'll probably always have to have the latest and greatest. NOt me, not anymore, not when I add up what I've spent over the years playing that game...

Apple is just milking a small segment of its market, with always too much money to spend.

I doubt if any/much software which truly uses the quad PPC power will ever be written...for such a small, soon to be an always declining percentage of Mac users, as the Intel move takes hold.

I'm bewidered by those people enthusimg over a platform thats almost obsolete...the King is dead...long love the King.


But how long is it going to take to get quad Intel Macs? I don't think we'll see those soon. And regardless, if you need a machine, why wait a year for it if this will work fine. The performance is great and there won't be any issues with software any time soon - what about all the G5s out there now?

D

[jiggie2g]

Companies are going to put quad core into a sub $1000 USD PC?

Don't worry, people who bought one of the fastest computers on the market WILL be enjoying it. You may think it's expensive, but the fact that it's the fastest (or 2nd fastest....who knows) computer on the market makes it worth its price. If you do buy a $1000 PC, you're not getting the best, so its not even comparable. Its like comparing your Kia with a BMW.

Also, a quad core Opteron system costs $2000 to $3000 more than the quad core Mac with the same specs (although the RAM will be slightly slower in the quad core Opteron, despite the system costing a lot more). If you don't believe me, remember that Google is your friend. You'll find it.

Please people stop the Car analogies it's stupid and really dosen't make any comparision to mac and PC. Guys don't buy BMW for speed/performance , they buy them so chicks will hop in and screw thier brains out. Those cars are all about showing off , not abosolute value.

[morrisond]

http://www.barefeats.com/quad01.html has some great numbers on the Quad

[AidenShaw]

But how long is it going to take to get quad Intel Macs? I don't think we'll see those soon.
Yesterday?

Quad-core Intel systems are available now.... (http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/precn_470?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=biz&~tab=specstab#tabtop)

It's just a matter of when Jobs wants to ship them.

[andiwm2003]

No, I won't. Because I'll buy a dual socket quad core version and still be faster and more expensive.

The people that are going to cry are those that buy the sub $1000 multi-core system and it's about 3% faster than the previous generation system because of most applications out there won't know what to do with a multi-threaded processor.

Most of the benchmarks out there that are beautiful on the dual or better systems out there are multi-threaded.

But MS Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Quicken, whatever most regular non-power users use won't run any faster on a dual or quad core system because they don't know what to do with more execution units.

Gamers will be ticked because their machines will be slow...

Just my $0.02

i'm one of the non-power users that want to buy a dual core (of course a mac, not a windows box;) ).

i don't expect single apps to run faster, i expect the system to stay responsive while something runs in the background (burning a cd, running a video podcast). that is where for the consumer the strength of a dual core system is. running multiple apps without slowing down the system responsiveness.

[longofest]

So, this forum has been posting all about the XBench and Cinebench benchmarks, and been drooling over the CPU's (whether it be AMD Opterons or Athlons or PowerPC 970 MP's).

Now, I'm all about that. It's fun and insightful. But I want to draw people's attention briefly to some tools that ATI has recently introduced (right now only for Windoze). http://digg.com/software/ATI_Delivers_GPU-Accelerated_Video_Transcoding_ This App will transcode MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 (5-min clip) in 24 seconds using ATI's latest GPU's to accelerate the process.

Apple has begun to get on this bandwagon with Core Image, but I think we are going to see more and more emphasis on shunting this kind of work from the processor to the GPU. I wouldn't be surprised if it is a feature of QT8 and 10.5.

[foniks2020]

So, this forum has been posting all about the XBench and Cinebench benchmarks, and been drooling over the CPU's (whether it be AMD Opterons or Athlons or PowerPC 970 MP's).

Now, I'm all about that. It's fun and insightful. But I want to draw people's attention briefly to some tools that ATI has recently introduced (right now only for Windoze). http://digg.com/software/ATI_Delivers_GPU-Accelerated_Video_Transcoding_ This App will transcode MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 (5-min clip) in 24 seconds using ATI's latest GPU's to accelerate the process.

Apple has begun to get on this bandwagon with Core Image, but I think we are going to see more and more emphasis on shunting this kind of work from the processor to the GPU. I wouldn't be surprised if it is a feature of QT8 and 10.5.



I've spoken with multiple knowledgeable friends on this over the last 4 years... we've all agreed that GPUs have the ability to do some incredible things when it comes to number crunching.... and for OS X this should be even more pronounced in the near term as you mentioned... they already have a processing workflow built in to the core of the os, so creating extensions that use those libraries in new innovative ways or 'extend' them beyond their current capabilities to really interesting applications, should not take long.

[longofest]

Can you digg it?

http://digg.com/apple/First_PowerMac_G5_Quad_Benchmarks_Posted

;)

[Trekkie]

Yesterday?

Quad-core Intel systems are available now.... (http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/precn_470?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=biz&~tab=specstab#tabtop)

It's just a matter of when Jobs wants to ship them.

Uh, those are dual core.

And you might do a search on Paxville vs. AMD Dual core and see how bad the performance is and how they consume some massive amounts of power by comparison.

[Chad A Wright]

When we're all Intel fanboys, the people with expensive quads will feel weird having a machine that went obsolete so quickly. Still they're the early adopters who'll probably always have to have the latest and greatest. NOt me, not anymore, not when I add up what I've spent over the years playing that game...

I'm bewidered by those people enthusimg over a platform thats almost obsolete...the King is dead...long love the King.

For some of us, it's not about what chip is inside, or how much RAM we have. For me it's about the work I do on it. People are impressed when they walk into my office and see the 30" ACD. I hope that they are always more impressed by the work on that display.

Making my living on these things means that I don't have time for computer problems. The Quad is perfect for me. The software out now will do truly great things, and the computer itself will last for many years to come. This will get me through the first few years of the Intel transition, and beyond. The Quad has plenty of head room and is a great value, especially considering that it is only $300 more than what the 2.7 was.

For some of us, it's the perfect time and the perfect computer.

[Trekkie]

i don't expect single apps to run faster, i expect the system to stay responsive while something runs in the background (burning a cd, running a video podcast). that is where for the consumer the strength of a dual core system is. running multiple apps without slowing down the system responsiveness.

expect to be disappointed (at least on an Intel platform speaking for todays architectures as dual core is just now appearing)

Multi core architectures aren't something you can just toss in an expect the software to take advntage of. There is going ot need to be some serious overhauling done of both the operating systems as well as the applications to easily benefit from what you're describing.

Intel knows this. Intel is offering tons of tools (sorry can't find a web link) for helping coprorate endusers, and what not, to re-write their applications to do what you're wanting. But as it stands today right now dual core isn't going to double the performance of most things.

What would happen now is the OS would try it's best to chuck requests to the other cores but you'd have some stalling happening because thread one on core 1 needs to finish before thread two on core two can execute, and what not.

Thought I really think the concern on the power mac's is all moot. I'd bet money we won't see powermacs with intel until late '06 at the earliest. the first generation or so of Intel's processors (dual socket) are going to be 145W of power per socket. That's a crapload of power consumption. When they go 65 nm it'll get a lot better and that's when I bet Apple will move to them. For reference looking at IBM's website (I can't find the link) was around 35W per socket. :eek: that's one heck of a difference and a lot more liquid cooling or noisy fans...

That being said my finger has been hovering over a 'BUY' button on the dual core dual socket PM 2.5GHz for a few days now...I really want to use Aperture and it won't run on my Rev A iMac G5 (video card not supported)

[rantsky]

expect to be disappointed (at least on an Intel platform speaking for todays architectures as dual core is just now appearing)

Multi core architectures aren't something you can just toss in an expect the software to take advntage of. There is going ot need to be some serious overhauling done of both the operating systems as well as the applications to easily benefit from what you're describing.

Intel knows this. Intel is offering tons of tools (sorry can't find a web link) for helping coprorate endusers, and what not, to re-write their applications to do what you're wanting. But as it stands today right now dual core isn't going to double the performance of most things.

What would happen now is the OS would try it's best to chuck requests to the other cores but you'd have some stalling happening because thread one on core 1 needs to finish before thread two on core two can execute, and what not.

Thought I really think the concern on the power mac's is all moot. I'd bet money we won't see powermacs with intel until late '06 at the earliest. the first generation or so of Intel's processors (dual socket) are going to be 145W of power per socket. That's a crapload of power consumption. When they go 65 nm it'll get a lot better and that's when I bet Apple will move to them. For reference looking at IBM's website (I can't find the link) was around 35W per socket. :eek: that's one heck of a difference and a lot more liquid cooling or noisy fans...

That being said my finger has been hovering over a 'BUY' button on the dual core dual socket PM 2.5GHz for a few days now...I really want to use Aperture and it won't run on my Rev A iMac G5 (video card not supported)


My experience is really different! A friend of mine has an AMD X2 3800+ and the system works great with dual core. You can run any single- or multi-threaded program and select on which core (or cores if is multi-thr) it will run on. You get one core busy crunching numbers, while the system is still fully functional on the other core. Makes you wish you had many more cores actually! Nowadays everyone is web surfing + downloading + burning + playing music + chatting + skyping + compressing + working(?) + ... at the same time. The gain from multicores can be incredible even if every app is single-threaded! Quad-core really seems quite natural at this point.

[scifiman]

Uh, those are dual core.

And you might do a search on Paxville vs. AMD Dual core and see how bad the performance is and how they consume some massive amounts of power by comparison.

You're right that those are dual core but the system can be configured to have 2 dual core procs so AidenShaw is right in that the system has 4 computing cores. As for the Intel vs. AMD debate, you're absolutely right that AMD trumps Intel in power consumption and performance per watt. Any current gen. Intel processor, save the Pentium M, is obsolete right now compared to an AMD proc imho. Having said that, the future Intel roadmap does loop pretty impressive. They still have to fix the limitations with their FSB (front-side bus) and the move to a smaller die should really help with the power consumption.

Edited because I misread the post above.

[AidenShaw]

Uh, those are dual core.

And you might do a search on Paxville vs. AMD Dual core and see how bad the performance is and how they consume some massive amounts of power by comparison.
I said "Quad-core Intel systems", not quad-core chips.

Since the number of cores is the most important factor (not the number of chips), calling the dual-dual PMG5 a "quad" is reasonable. Calling dual-dual Xeons "quads" is also reasonable.

As for performance, the postings seen so far lack a certain rigour in their analyses - insufficient numbers of benchmarks done on early hardware that don't test the whole system. It's too early to dismiss Paxville as a failure....

[bdjones]

Does this make any sense to anybody?

yes! Check out this page. It has a the results for CineBench run on many machines Mac and PC. It makes a lot of sense in relation like that, particularly to users of Cinema4D :-)

http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/cbtop.php

It would be great if you could post your results up there.

[AidenShaw]

What would happen now is the OS would try it's best to chuck requests to the other cores but you'd have some stalling happening because thread one on core 1 needs to finish before thread two on core two can execute, and what not.
You seem to be confusing "Hyper Threading" (or SMT) with dual cores.

Dual cores are equivalent to dual processors - especially on Intel (since the cores currently communicate on the FSB - just like a two-chip system).

There is no need imposed by the CPU for one thread to finish before another can start. Application synchronization protocols may require this - but again, it's the same as any other multi-processor.

The original poster was describing running multiple applications at once. These will have no synchronization issues whether on dual-core or dual-chip systems - the threads in the apps are independent.

[Synchro]

Please people stop the Car analogies it's stupid and really dosen't make any comparision to mac and PC. Guys don't buy BMW for speed/performance , they buy them so chicks will hop in and screw thier brains out. Those cars are all about showing off , not abosolute value.
I agree that car analogies do get very silly, however, there's an interesting stat that might come as something of a shock to US readers (given typical viewpoints like Jiggie2g's and the frequent comparison of Apple to BMW in order to characterise them as a minority premium product): in the UK, in the midrange (Mondeo/3-series), BMW now outsells Ford. In fact BMW outsells everyone in this market.

Bodes well for Apple I'd say. Or maybe us Brits just have better taste in cars. :p

[Naimfan]

I've got to say I find the posted benchmarks for the Quad to be impressive, even allowing for the difficulty in making direct comparisons, although I'd also agree with those who want to see it in action on real world work. I was actually inspired, if that is the right word, to run Xbench and Cinebench on my iMac. The highest score I got on Xbench was 82.66--a little more than half of what what the Quad achieves.

And a question on Cinebench--the higher the number, the better? The only number I remember with specificity is the "OpenGL speedup" or something like that--it was 5.88. Is that good, bad, or indifferent?

Best,

Bob

[AidenShaw]

in the UK, in the midrange (Mondeo/3-series), BMW now outsells Ford. In fact BMW outsells everyone in this market.

Bodes well for Apple I'd say. Or maybe us Brits just have better taste in cars. :p
What's the average selling price of the Mondeo vs. the 3-series in the UK?

In the US, BMW loads each car will just about every conceivable option package - which makes the entry price for the 3-series much, much higher than the entry price for the Ford. ($30K vs $21K)

[840quadra]

As for performance, the postings seen so far lack a certain rigour in their analyses - insufficient numbers of benchmarks done on early hardware that don't test the whole system. It's too early to dismiss Paxville as a failure....

That is the same opinion I have over the benchmarks on this new Quad core G5 Powermac. People are getting too hyper sensitive, and posting other benchmarks comparing scores with the G5 calling one faster or slower.

I have run into situations were a customer will have a SQL query run faster on one of their older servers then when the same query was run on a new system with faster processors. They then use this as a benchmark, and complain that the new $5000 HP server we sold, configured and manage for them was a waste of money. They ignore the fact that this new server is faster at running their application, terminal server, and at processing their data.

The problem with benchmarks is the same as you listed, and they don't tell the whole story about the system. The fact of the matter is, perceived or benchmarked speeds all depend on how the device is used, and if processes being used are optimized for that system.

[Azurael]

I can't come close to anything else, even with a little overclocking on the side... Still, nice to know my poor 'lil Sempron 3000+ lappy doesn't overheat or crash when OC'd to 1980MHz ;) Especially impressive considering the fact that it's smaller than a 12" iBook. I might have to get myself a new CPU... maybe a Turion MT-40 to replace the crappy 'lil Sempron. I want a new Mac!

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Azurael

Processor : MSI MS-1013 Sempron 3000+
MHz : 1980
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Windows XP SP2

Graphics Card : Radeon XPRESS 200M
Resolution : 1280x800
Color Depth : 32-bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 277 CB-CPU

****************************************************

[finchna]

i'm one of the non-power users that want to buy a dual core (of course a mac, not a windows box;) ).

i don't expect single apps to run faster, i expect the system to stay responsive while something runs in the background (burning a cd, running a video podcast). that is where for the consumer the strength of a dual core system is. running multiple apps without slowing down the system responsiveness.

You can also get that with one of the older dual G5 macs--might save a bit if you can find one on sale.

[manu chao]

My experience is really different! A friend of mine has an AMD X2 3800+ and the system works great with dual core. You can run any single- or multi-threaded program and select on which core (or cores if is multi-thr) it will run on. You get one core busy crunching numbers, while the system is still fully functional on the other core. Makes you wish you had many more cores actually! Nowadays everyone is web surfing + downloading + burning + playing music + chatting + skyping + compressing + working(?) + ... at the same time. The gain from multicores can be incredible even if every app is single-threaded! Quad-core really seems quite natural at this point.

And with OS X you don't have to select the core the OS will do for you automatically. Considering that, according to a poll on macosxhints (representative for geeks only, I guess), half of all users have seven or more GUI applications open at the same time, which translates into a multiple of this in terms of the number of threads. There are plenty of tasks already which can be processed parallely.

[dmglover]

Sure...

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Pie

Processor : Quad G5
MHz : 2.5 GHZ
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : 10.4.2

Graphics Card : GeForce 6600
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 359 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 1016 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 2.83

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 353 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1051 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1871 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.29

****************************************************


Does this make any sense to anybody?

I want a QUAD PowerMac NOW!! I am interested if anyone knows why the difference in Shading numbers.

Here is my Cinebench 2003 v1 results for my AMD System.

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : MG

Processor : ASUSA8VDAMD4200X2
MHz : 2200 Overclocked to 2425
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Microsoft Windows XP Pro SP2

Graphics Card : NVidia GeForce 6800 Ultraa AGP
Resolution : 1280 x 1024
Color Depth : Highest 32bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 342 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 636 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.86

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 333 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1827 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 3277 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 9.83

****************************************************

[AidenShaw]

And with OS X you don't have to select the core the OS will do for you automatically.
Windows will also do it automatically, and probably better than you can do it by hand unless you have a pretty unique and static workload.

Setting affinity manually often leads to one core sitting idle while multiple threads are fighting for the other core.

[Trekkie]

You seem to be confusing "Hyper Threading" (or SMT) with dual cores.

No, I'm not, I must not have gotten my point across


Dual cores are equivalent to dual processors - especially on Intel (since the cores currently communicate on the FSB - just like a two-chip system).

no, they're not. On a dual socket single core system you have two processors each with a dedicated socket and access to the memory controller.

With dual core you gave a dog more heads but didn't give it a thicker neck or stomach. This is true for current shipping AMD products or Intel products, they are socket swaps for existing single core to go to dual core. This will change over time as newer FSBs from Intel and the 'rev F' socket adds more HT links next year but for now this is a true statement.

There is no need imposed by the CPU for one thread to finish before another can start. Application synchronization protocols may require this - but again, it's the same as any other multi-processor.

I know, that's not what I said. What I said was Thread 2 relies on something Thread 1 is doing and until thread 1 completes thread 2 will stall. This has nothing to do with SMT where you have registers in use by thread 1 so thread 2 stalls in the pipeline.


The original poster was describing running multiple applications at once. These will have no synchronization issues whether on dual-core or dual-chip systems - the threads in the apps are independent.

Yes, there is. Because the OS is going to take all these applicaitons and try to multiplex them through the system threads it can receive. When you've got a single threaded app spread across two to four cores it's going to stall backing up other apps being spread like peanut butter across the cores. The OS needs to get smart about how it handles the scheduling of threads and you can and will see performance improvements. But not every app is a multi-core aware application and the OS tries its best to make them that way, causing delay and latency.

[gugy]

I think these quad machine are made for those PPC people who just have to have bragging rights, now, until the Intel Macs come out, which would have to smoke the quads, else why would Apple go that way.

When we're all Intel fanboys, the people with expensive quads will feel weird having a machine that went obsolete so quickly. Still they're the early adopters who'll probably always have to have the latest and greatest. NOt me, not anymore, not when I add up what I've spent over the years playing that game...

Apple is just milking a small segment of its market, with always too much money to spend.

I doubt if any/much software which truly uses the quad PPC power will ever be written...for such a small, soon to be an always declining percentage of Mac users, as the Intel move takes hold.

I'm bewidered by those people enthusimg over a platform thats almost obsolete...the King is dead...long love the King.

Sorry, I don't agree with you at all.
The PM Intel machines might be here around middle of 2007.
For people who needs new PM now the Quad seems to be the right thing to purchase it.
Even if Intel is amazing and smoke away the quad in 2007 it doesn't make any sense to hold of a quad purchase now. Personally, I think it's safer for professionals like me to have a quad and get a rev. B PM Intel. The revB might be here at the end 2008. So that would be enough time to have a solid machine on the Quad working for you.
I would rather wait and see how Rosetta works under the Intel.
The most important thing is if you need a computer now and that will help you make money go and get the Quad. People who wait for the latest and most amazing computer will only get disappointed, because always something better is on the horizon.
The quads seems to be very solid. I just worked on a 2.5 single core PMs and it was amazing. I can't imagine what my new Quad 2.5 with 7800 GT card will look like. Unfortunately, I'll have to wait until Xmas to find out!
:eek:

[AidenShaw]

no, they're not. On a dual socket single core system you have two processors each with a dedicated socket and access to the memory controller.
Intel has a shared FSB - it doesn't matter if two cores share the single FSB through one socket or two.

The G5 has per-socket FSBs to a shared memory controller, so the dual chip might have an FSB advantage - but one that's unlikely to matter since the memory controller is a bottleneck.

AMD has per-socket memory controllers. A dual-core chip might outperform two single-cores because all the memory is accessible to a dual-core without going over the high-latency HT link which the two single cores have to use. This, of course, will be application and OS dependent (Win2k3 and the latest Linux kernels know about the NUMA topology and can do some improved memory allocation and scheduling).


When you've got a single threaded app spread across two to four cores it's going to stall backing up other apps being spread like peanut butter across the cores.
This is not only one of the worst analogies I've ever seen posted, it's not even close to the way OS schedulers work.

A single thread cannot be "spread" across more than one core simultaneously - it can only be scheduled on one CPU at a time. The other CPUs (cores) can be scheduled with other threads from other single threaded applications, without any CPU level contention. (Disks, network and memory contention may be happening - but your description of one thread clogging all the cores is absurd.)

But not every app is a multi-core aware application and the OS tries its best to make them that way, causing delay and latency.
Please explain this, I can't make any sense of it.

[Booga]

Someone should write an AppleSCript that starts 4 copies of MacBench simultaneously.

[woolfgang]

I did a search and couldn't find anything worthwhile. Question: What's with the 800MHZ FSB that Intel seems to have? Granted, it's not slow, it's just that no matter if it's a 1.6G or 3.6G system, it never seems to get past that. I'm not trying to start a "Thing" here, but would really like some info.

[plinden]

I did a search and couldn't find anything worthwhile. Question: What's with the 800MHZ FSB that Intel seems to have? Granted, it's not slow, it's just that no matter if it's a 1.6G or 3.6G system, it never seems to get past that. I'm not trying to start a "Thing" here, but would really like some info.
It's actually what they term "quad-pumped" at 200 MHz FSB.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quad-pumped

Their P4 Extreme Editions are at 1066MHz, quad-pumped.

[woolfgang]

It's actually what they term "quad-pumped" at 200 MHz FSB.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quad-pumped

Their P4 Extreme Editions are at 1066MHz, quad-pumped.
Thanks.

[longofest]

This is not only one of the worst analogies I've ever seen posted, it's not even close to the way OS schedulers work.

A single thread cannot be "spread" across more than one core simultaneously - it can only be scheduled on one CPU at a time. The other CPUs (cores) can be scheduled with other threads from other single threaded applications, without any CPU level contention. (Disks, network and memory contention may be happening - but your description of one thread clogging all the cores is absurd.)

Thanks for clearing that up. I was going to if you hadn't. 1 thread/core, or 1 process/core, or more of course via scheduling, but .5 threads/core doesn't make any sense.

[aliensporebomb]

It's very interesting to find out what benchmarks show up as or even
what they vary between versions. My G5 2.5 dual produces an utterly
absurd 312 rating in an old version of Xbench I have lying around but
produces 126 or so on the latest. I also find I get better results when
the network cable is UNPLUGGED when running Xbench scans.

And here's something I found very interesting. I used ATIccelerator II
to overclock my 9600 XT video card in my G5 2.5 dual and found that
with all the new Quartz Extreme features it had an effect on the outcome
of the tests.

The 9600 XT comes shipped with the Mac is clocked to 400 mhz with
the memory somewhere in the low 300 range whereas the same card
on the PC is clocked to 500 mhz with memory in the 320 range.

PC overclockers have determined this card can easily be pushed 25%
beyond original rated clock (original being 500) but don't push the
memory beyond 330 or you could have a dead card on your hands.

So I decided to overclock the card and see how it effected some
game play and general use. A slight improvement. Original ratings
were 341, 970 and 1619 for the OpenGL shading portions of the
test. I set the card to 525 mhz clock and 322 mhz ram speed.

Check this:

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : AfterImages

Processor : G5 2.5 Dual
MHz : 2.5 GHZ
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.3

Graphics Card : ATI Radeon 9600 XT
Resolution : 1280x1024
Color Depth : 32-Bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 360 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 657 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.75

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 341 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1000 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1795 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.30

****************************************************

Interesting. A bit of extra speed but one suspects Apple clocked the
cards to 400 mhz so as to not necessitate a fan on the cards thus
keeping it quieter than a fanned card. I've since brought it back to
the original clock speed but when playing games or the like I'll bring
it back up there.

Food for thought. /Re-enter lurk mode.

[oober_freak]

Using Photoshop CS or CS2 (or PS 7)
==================================================
1.) Download the test image from http://www.quicklance.com/test.jpg
2.) Save it to the computer and then open it up in Photoshop
3.) From there please apply a ‘radial blur’ with the settings at:
Amount = 100
Blur Method = Spin
Quality = Best
Using a stop watch / ps timer see how long it takes to apply this filter
I just want to see what these new cpu’s can really do.

Results:
iMac G5 1.8GHz, 1GB - 2:00
Athlon XP3200+, 1GB - 2:15
Athlon64 4000+, 1GB - 1:25
Dual 2.5 Running 10.4.2 with 2.5 GB RAM 40 seconds
PowerMac Dual 2.7 Dell 2405 FPW, 2.5 gigs of ram, Radeon 9650 42 seconds
Dual Core 2.0 GHz G5 with 2.5GB ram Photoshop CS2 47.4 seconds

Quad 2.5GHz G5 2.5GB RAM 10.4.3 22 seconds !!!!! It's an amazing huh??!!!


Took 2:35 min on my Mac Mini 1.42 with 512 mb ram.. i'll re-run the test and confirm

Edit: This time it took 2:32... I love this li'l pest :D

[shyataroo]

Took 2:35 min on my Mac Mini 1.42 with 512 mb ram.. i'll re-run the test and confirm

Edit: This time it took 2:32... I love this li'l pest :D

it took me 7:26 on my iMac G3

[shewhorn]

Has anyone had a chance to run the Driver Heaven Photoshop test suite yet?

Instructions here: http://www.driverheaven.net/photoshop/
Mac download here: http://www.driverheaven.net/photoshop/dhpsbench2.zip
Results for comparison here (there's a few PowerMacs in there): http://www.driverheavendownloads.net/photoshop/results.php

Cheers, Joe

[jaduffy108]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

One of our Wales UK-based members has reported receiving his Power Mac G5 Quad (http://www.apple.com/powermac/) earlier in the week, and has run a preliminary set of Xbench benchmarks on it. While full details are in the forum thread, the overall score for the machine with 3 GB RAM running Mac OS X 10.4.2 weighs in at 151.86.


>> 11-9-05
http://barefeats.com/quad01.html
Compares quad to dual core 2.5 i believe.... enjoy

[bc2610]

it took me 7:26 on my iMac G3

Took 1:45 on a Dual 1.8 G5. Not sure if it matters but I had many apps open at the time of running.

[HiRez]

Does this make any sense to anybody?Yeah. My old 800 MHz G4 PowerBook gets a 72 for rendering, and IIRC my dual 2.0 G5 gets something around 550-600...so your 1016 looks pretty good, considering the overhead of multithreading. :)

[melgross]

Your point , Do u think most system builders paid $300 for XP Pro. I've seen more cracked XP Pro Discs passed around then AOL sign up discs. The Pirates are going to Increase OSX's market share more than anyone in the coming years.

Arrrr Matey there be cracked Tigers in the Bay (Hint Hint).:D

It wasn't hard to crack the security for XP because it was a halfhearted attempt.

Tiger depends upon much secure technology. The software code is tied to the hardware. It's not likely that it will be so easily cracked. Even if it is, the technology assures that no programs will work.

Having the OS with nothing to run on it will be a lot of fun.

[melgross]

It's actually what they term "quad-pumped" at 200 MHz FSB.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quad-pumped

Their P4 Extreme Editions are at 1066MHz, quad-pumped.

It doesn't matter how many times they're pumped. The end result is the same.

[yojitani]

Not sure if these have been posted here, but this guy has done a comparison, represented in graphical form, of the quad core 2.5 and the single core dual 2.5.
http://www.barefeats.com/quad01.html

Also, he posted test results for the Dual-Core G5/2.0GHz versus Single-Core

Dual G5/2.0GHz Power Mac:
http://www.barefeats.com/dc20.html

What awesome machines!

YOJ

[Tupring]

It wasn't hard to crack the security for XP because it was a halfhearted attempt.

Tiger depends upon much secure technology. The software code is tied to the hardware. It's not likely that it will be so easily cracked. Even if it is, the technology assures that no programs will work.

Having the OS with nothing to run on it will be a lot of fun.They'll make their own or krack them

[Tupring]

How does the Quad compare to this:
http://www.torrentspy.com/article.asp?id=3805

The US National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has unveiled two new IBM supercomputers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), which are capable of the fastest processing speeds yet achieved.
The 65,536 processor BlueGene/L supercomputer has performed a record 280.6 trillion operations per second on the industry standard LINPACK benchmark - software used to rank the speeds of the world’s fastest machines.

Purple, the other half of the most powerful supercomputing twosome, is a machine capable of 100 trillion operations per second as it conducts simulations of a complete nuclear weapons performance.
Together, the Purple and BlueGene/L systems will perform half a petaflop, or half of a quadrillion (1,000,000,000,000,000) operations per second.
NNSA administrator Linton F Brooks said the machines will be used to run three-dimensional codes at lightning-fast speeds for nuclear weapons’ analysis. This was formerly accomplished by underground nuclear testing.
“The unprecedented computing power of these two supercomputers is more critical than ever to meet the time-urgent issues related to maintaining our nation’s aging nuclear stockpile without testing,” Brooks said.
“Purple represents the culmination of a 10-year effort to create a new class of supercomputers. BlueGene/L points the way to the future and the computing power we will need to improve our ability to predict the behaviour of the stockpile as it continues to age. This has reestablished American computing preeminence.”

In a recent demonstration of its work capability, BlueGene/L ran a record-setting materials science application at 101.5 teraflops sustained over seven hours on the machine’s 131,072 processors, running an application of importance to NNSA’s effort to ensure the safety and reliability of the nation’s nuclear deterrent. A teraflop is one trillion computer operations per second.
Both machines were developed through NNSA’s Advanced Simulation and Computing (ASC) program and join a series of other supercomputers at Sandia and Los Alamos national laboratories that are dedicated to NNSA’s Stockpile Stewardship effort to maintain the nation’s nuclear deterrent through science-based computation, theory and experiment.

[plinden]

How does the Quad compare to this:
http://www.torrentspy.com/article.asp?id=3805


Yeah, but where are the Doom 3 benchmarks?

[manu chao]

Windows will also do it automatically, and probably better than you can do it by hand unless you have a pretty unique and static workload.

Setting affinity manually often leads to one core sitting idle while multiple threads are fighting for the other core.

I thought so as well, but you know, with Windows I have said too often, 'But that cannot be' only be told later, 'No, that's the way Windows works'.

[crackrock]

PowerBook G4 867 12" - 150 is FAST! :eek:

Results 20.98
System Info
Xbench Version 1.2
System Version 10.4.3 (8F46)
Physical RAM 640 MB
Model PowerBook6,1
Processor PowerPC G4 @ 867 MHz
Version 7455 (Apollo) v3.3
L1 Cache 32K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 256K @ 534 MHz
Bus Frequency 134 MHz
Video Card GeForce4 MX
Drive Type SAMSUNG MP0402H
CPU Test 27.47
GCD Loop 51.60 2.72 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 18.04 428.72 Mflop/sec
vecLib FFT 47.20 1.56 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 20.15 3.51 Mops/sec
Thread Test 31.44
Computation 30.47 617.26 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 32.47 1.40 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 18.84
System 18.58
Allocate 74.53 273.68 Kalloc/sec
Fill 13.09 636.67 MB/sec
Copy 13.95 288.16 MB/sec
Stream 19.10
Copy 19.02 392.76 MB/sec [altivec]
Scale 18.48 381.84 MB/sec [altivec]
Add 19.52 415.85 MB/sec [altivec]
Triad 19.44 415.77 MB/sec [altivec]
Quartz Graphics Test 28.19
Line 31.75 2.11 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 27.89 8.33 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 28.19 2.30 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 33.43 843.20 beziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 22.40 1.40 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 46.23
Spinning Squares 46.23 58.65 frames/sec
User Interface Test 9.68
Elements 9.68 44.42 refresh/sec
Disk Test 19.29
Sequential 33.97
Uncached Write 24.18 14.84 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 34.97 19.79 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 44.23 12.95 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 39.70 19.95 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 13.47
Uncached Write 4.22 0.45 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 41.54 13.30 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 50.52 0.36 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 62.68 11.63 MB/sec [256K blocks]

[Legacy]

Returned the following results:rolleyes:

Results 37.97

System Info
Xbench Version 1.2
System Version 10.4.3 (8F46)
Physical RAM 1024 MB
Model PowerBook6,7
Processor PowerPC G4 @ 1.33 GHz
L1 Cache 32K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.33 GHz
Bus Frequency 134 MHz
Video Card ATY,M12
Drive Type TOSHIBA MK6025GAS
CPU Test 51.44
GCD Loop 110.60 5.83 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 31.39 745.74 Mflop/sec
vecLib FFT 77.14 2.54 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 41.85 7.29 Mops/sec
Thread Test 57.72
Computation 55.16 1.12 Mops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 60.54 2.60 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 23.83
System 27.64
Allocate 101.94 374.37 Kalloc/sec
Fill 27.84 1353.52 MB/sec
Copy 15.92 328.80 MB/sec
Stream 20.94
Copy 21.14 436.71 MB/sec [altivec]
Scale 20.82 430.03 MB/sec [altivec]
Add 20.87 444.59 MB/sec [altivec]
Triad 20.94 447.90 MB/sec [altivec]
Quartz Graphics Test 57.41
Line 42.52 2.83 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 50.89 15.19 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 50.56 4.12 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 66.65 1.68 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 109.38 6.84 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 69.25
Spinning Squares 69.25 87.85 frames/sec
User Interface Test 30.20
Elements 30.20 138.62 refresh/sec
Disk Test 24.58
Sequential 43.64
Uncached Write 36.54 22.43 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 38.02 21.51 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 71.89 21.04 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 41.52 20.87 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 17.11
Uncached Write 5.92 0.63 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 33.77 10.81 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 51.97 0.37 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 62.44 11.59 MB/sec [256K blocks]

[melgross]

They'll make their own or krack them

Cute!

There's nothing to "krack".

[Prom1]

Yesterday?

Quad-core Intel systems are available now.... (http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/precn_470?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=biz&~tab=specstab#tabtop)

It's just a matter of when Jobs wants to ship them.

strange that link has at the bottom 16GB of ram with just 6 slots; how on Earth are the configuration for the RAM chips?!!

[AidenShaw]

strange that link has at the bottom 16GB of ram with just 6 slots; how on Earth are the configuration for the RAM chips?!!
16GB, DDR2 SDRAM Memory, 400MHz, ECC (6 DIMMS) [add $23,300]

Easy - two 4 GiB DIMMs, and 4 2 GiB DIMMs.... (note that 12 GiB is only $9.2K)

[Multimedia]

For the first time in Apple's history we are looking at a regression in chip technology over the next year from this point on - assuming Intel can even get something usable out next year.

Massively cheaper and faster quad systems and it is all being thrown out the door. Thank you Jobs you idiot. Go play with your iPods and find someone competent to run the desktop hardware side of the company.

It is going to be embarrassing to have to listen to him try to spin his was through the performance and feature drop that will come when the first garbage Intel desktops show up. Sickening.I don't know what you're smoking, but from where I sit I see nothing but faster PowerMacs etc coming down the pike. Nothing is being thrown out any doors that I can see. :rolleyes:

[jiggie2g]

It wasn't hard to crack the security for XP because it was a halfhearted attempt.

Tiger depends upon much secure technology. The software code is tied to the hardware. It's not likely that it will be so easily cracked. Even if it is, the technology assures that no programs will work.

Having the OS with nothing to run on it will be a lot of fun.


If a man makes it another can break it , this is fact. There are ways to fool software to believe you are running it's certified hardware. all of a sudden because it's made by apple it won't be hacked, cracked , and distributed all over the web. News Flash buddy I can download Tiger 10.4.3 right now for mac or PC and both will work just as good as your copy. You continue to believe the crap Jobs feeds you. and i will be here to gloat this time next year.