PDA

View Full Version : Is 2.0GHz Intel Core Duo Faster than Dual-core 2.0GHz G5?




JasonGough
Mar 18, 2006, 06:07 PM
Had a look on that Geekbench link thing... but it seems to me that most the time, the G5 2 gig of the iMac G5 is only about half the speed of the core duo, which suggests that the Dual-Core G5 is about the same speed as the Core Duo chip.

Does this sound right to anyone else?

The iMac advert says twice as fast, but thats only cos there are twice as many processors.

I think I'm just trying to find out cos i'd like to know that my dual-core 2.3 PowerMac G5 is not actually much or any slower than the core duo iMacs.

Am i right or horribly out of whack?



Josh396
Mar 18, 2006, 06:16 PM
I would say your Powermac is at least as fast as the new Intel iMacs. When it comes to applications using Rosetta on the new iMac I'm sure your Powermac is twice as fast. I wouldn't at all be worried about your computer being slow compared to the new Intel machines.

Artful Dodger
Mar 18, 2006, 11:08 PM
It's somewhat funny in the sense that all this Core Duo and Dual-core worry which is faster really comes down to...is it as fast and good as you are ;)
Anyone with either should be happy just to have them (we really both are). I think both systems are great and in two years both of "us" will be asking the same Q with different Macs.
If it's the fact that your waiting for your system (either) and it's costing you money then it would matter in a bad way. Really though you have a nice Mac that Ram and other things can be added to where I can't :( I think the question will really be for fall when PMs or whatever they will be called come out and beat everyone up ;)

howesey
Mar 19, 2006, 06:37 AM
It all depends on what you are doing.

The Intel chips are at lest twice as fast for things such as encoding of video or sound compared to the 2.0GHz G5 foud in iMac's for example. However, some tasts are only 1/4 to 1/3 faster on Intel CD 2GHz, of which your DC G5 should at least be 3/4 or faster.

joecool85
Mar 19, 2006, 06:47 AM
I have a 2ghz dual processor G5 and I'm not worried about it "keeping up" at all. I'm sure its faster than the intel machines out so far. And besides that, even if it wasn't as fast as whats currently out there, it'll get the job done, the thing is a workhorse.

Chaszmyr
Mar 19, 2006, 06:49 AM
I have a 2ghz dual processor G5 and I'm not worried about it "keeping up" at all. I'm sure its faster than the intel machines out so far. And besides that, even if it wasn't as fast as whats currently out there, it'll get the job done, the thing is a workhorse.

It'll get the job done, but I think people are in denial about just how fast these core duo machines are. Running universal software, my 1.83ghz MBP seems to perform better than my dual 2.7ghz G5 in many tasks.

nrd
Mar 19, 2006, 08:02 AM
I recently sold my 2.0 G5 PowerMac (dual chip, not dual core) for a 2.0 MacBook Pro. I notice no significant difference between the two machines. I'm sure, however, that testing of real world use would likely show that the G5 is slightly faster because of two reasons: faster FSB (and thus memory) and a faster (or should I say less latent) hard drive.

I'm sure if you did integer/floating point tests, one chip would excel over the other, but for most purposes, the machines are very similar.

leekohler
Mar 19, 2006, 02:21 PM
I just ordered a dual-core 2.0 Ghz G5 myself. Can't wait for it to get here. I'll be locked in my house for days. :)

JasonGough
Mar 19, 2006, 10:58 PM
don't get me wrong, i love my powermac to bits, it runs so well!

i was just curious, cos the clock speeds for the intel and PPC are the same, and i understand that PPC does more operations per clock cycle that pentium 4, so was just wondering if its the same with the core duo.

my mac is fast enough to run any pro tools session i throw at it, so all is good regardless of the speeds of the new boys :)

Anonymous Freak
Mar 19, 2006, 11:37 PM
I recently sold my 2.0 G5 PowerMac (dual chip, not dual core) for a 2.0 MacBook Pro. I notice no significant difference between the two machines. I'm sure, however, that testing of real world use would likely show that the G5 is slightly faster because of two reasons: faster FSB (and thus memory) and a faster (or should I say less latent) hard drive.

I'm sure if you did integer/floating point tests, one chip would excel over the other, but for most purposes, the machines are very similar.

Unfortunately, the 2.0 GHz G5 has slower memory than the MacBook Pro. The front side bus (the connection between the processor and the 'northbridge', the chip that connects processor, memory, video chip, and 'rest of computer',) is slower, but the memory is faster.

Your dual-processor 2.0 GHz Power Mac G5 has a 1 GHz front side bus, per processor, but only 400 MHz DDR memory. This means that the processors can talk to each other significantly faster than they can talk to main memory.

The Core Duo, on the other hand, has a 667 MHz front side bus (technically it is shared between the two cores, but the two cores are linked internally even faster than the G5,) with 667 MHz DDR2 memory. In all likelyhood, the Core Duo's memory is higher latency than the G5s (DDR2, in general, is higher latency; but if Apple skimped on the G5, they could be the same,) but faster transfer speed. This applies when memory is installed in pairs. The G5 forces dual-channel memory, whereas the Core Duo supports either single-channel or dual-channel mode. The Core Duo would be slower with just one memory module installed. (Which is the default configuration. You have to build-to-order, or add after purchase, to get dual-channel.)

Because of the combination of (potentially) faster memory, and faster inter-processor communication, but slower processor-to-northbridge connection, it probably all balances out.