PDA

View Full Version : Quad 3GHz Mac Pro vs Quad 2.5GHz PowerMac


FF_productions
Aug 15, 2006, 11:34 AM
Check it out!

http://barefeats.com/quad06.html


The 3 ghz Mac Pro is neck and neck with the G5 Quad in the Adobe benchmarks, sick considering the fact it's running under rosetta!!

Chaszmyr
Aug 15, 2006, 11:39 AM
That photoshop test is insane!

iGary
Aug 15, 2006, 11:39 AM
I would have thought that the Final Cut Pro benchmark would have really blown away the G5 - not so much, right?

Awesome on FileMaker and I can't wait to see how this stuff runs Adobe PS Natively.

MovieCutter
Aug 15, 2006, 11:42 AM
Still waiting for game benchmarks...

Felldownthewell
Aug 15, 2006, 11:51 AM
Amazing.

However the FCP benchmark is disapointing, but I suppose that it may rise when the x1900 is installed and tested. Still, that photoshop test? I don't think ANYONE expected results that good from a non-UB program. At least I didn't...

MovieCutter
Aug 15, 2006, 11:52 AM
Amazing.

However the FCP benchmark is disapointing, but I suppose that it may rise when the x1900 is installed and tested. Still, that photoshop test? I don't think ANYONE expected results that good from a non-UB program. At least I didn't...

I did...:D

DIE POWER PC...DIE!!!

cjkihlbom
Aug 15, 2006, 11:54 AM
I'm so glad I ordered the 3 Ghz, almost as fast as the Quad G5 in Photoshop is insane!

Xeem
Aug 15, 2006, 12:05 PM
Still waiting for game benchmarks...

Ditto. Sometimes a system's true colors don't show until you've benchmarked modern games on it.

mmmcheese
Aug 15, 2006, 12:18 PM
I did...:D

DIE POWER PC...DIE!!!

(sideshow bob)The Power PC...The!!!(/sideshow bob)

CyberPrey
Aug 15, 2006, 12:19 PM
Show.. me.. the.. games...

LOL, us gamers all sound kinda like broken records :)

ricgnzlzcr
Aug 15, 2006, 12:30 PM
Wow, I'm really surprised by those photoshop tests. When those go universal I'm sure my jaw will drop

Danksi
Aug 15, 2006, 12:58 PM
Amazing.

However the FCP benchmark is disapointing, but I suppose that it may rise when the x1900 is installed and tested. Still, that photoshop test? I don't think ANYONE expected results that good from a non-UB program. At least I didn't...

My main interest is in FCP the FCP results.

On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?

Chaszmyr
Aug 15, 2006, 01:00 PM
I would have thought that the Final Cut Pro benchmark would have really blown away the G5 - not so much, right?

I couldn't say for sure, but I would guess that the current version of FCP was carefully optimized for the G5, and has not yet undergone the same treatment for Intel chips.

bep207
Aug 15, 2006, 01:03 PM
has adobe dropped any hints as to when CS3 will be available

FF_productions
Aug 15, 2006, 01:04 PM
My main interest is in FCP the FCP results.

On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?

Video cards won't make a difference in FCP as of now if that's what you are asking performance wise. If you are using Motion/Games, anything that really feeds off the video card, then I'd go for the higher end video card.

Otherwise I'd go for the 2.6 ghz.

WildCowboy
Aug 15, 2006, 01:04 PM
has adobe dropped any hints as to when CS3 will be available

In March they were saying (http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/23/adobe-chizen-earnings_cz_dal_0324adobe.html?partner=links) the second quarter of next year.

FF_productions
Aug 15, 2006, 01:04 PM
has adobe dropped any hints as to when CS3 will be available

2nd quarter of 2007 is what I'm hearing.

Beat me to it.

darh
Aug 15, 2006, 01:11 PM
Video cards won't make a difference in FCP as of now if that's what you are asking performance wise. If you are using Motion/Games, anything that really feeds off the video card, then I'd go for the higher end video card.

Otherwise I'd go for the 2.6 ghz.

Couldn't it be the harddrive that is the limiting factor in this bnechmark?

QCassidy352
Aug 15, 2006, 01:12 PM
oh WOW. Considering that a single 1.67 G4 beats a dual 2.0 core duo in photoshop when the core duo has to use rosetta, the fact that the xeon is nearly even is amazing. That thing is going to be amazing when CS3 comes out! :eek:

FF_productions
Aug 15, 2006, 01:13 PM
Couldn't it be the harddrive that is the limiting factor in this bnechmark?

When rendering in FCP, it's all about the CPU.

Fast hard drives contribute to real-time effects, but do NOT contribute to rendering.

Ram helps a little bit.

Danksi
Aug 15, 2006, 01:16 PM
Video cards won't make a difference in FCP as of now if that's what you are asking performance wise. If you are using Motion/Games, anything that really feeds off the video card, then I'd go for the higher end video card.

Otherwise I'd go for the 2.6 ghz.

I've not really used Motion yet, just the other apps within FC-Studio.

Just been comparing their iMac 1.9 G5 results with those of the 2.66Ghz Mac Pro numbers... I don't think I'll be disappointed in the performance boost! :D

I guess my main concern is whether or not Apple integrates the individual Final Cut Studio applications more closely, so all of a sudden you'd need a better graphics card to comfortably run the 'editor', rather than just Motion as is the case at the moment.

I think I'll stick to the 2.66Ghz and standard graphics card, as FCP and compressor are more CPU intensive I believe.

FF_productions
Aug 15, 2006, 01:18 PM
I think I'll stick to the 2.66Ghz and standard graphics card, as FCP and compressor are more CPU intensive I believe.

Premiere Pro, for an example, is starting to use GPU-accelerated effects, I think it's a trend that will soon be coming over to FCP.

I'd get the 2.6 ghz, then add another graphics card in the future if the current one doesn't suffice.

Danksi
Aug 15, 2006, 01:20 PM
Premiere Pro, for an example, is starting to use GPU-accelerated effects, I think it's a trend that will soon be coming over to FCP.

I'd get the 2.6 ghz, then add another graphics card in the future if the current one doesn't suffice.

Good to know. Thanks.

NATO
Aug 15, 2006, 04:49 PM
Interesting results, definitely makes me want to rob the local bank to buy a 3.0GHz Mac Pro :p

Spotted something amusing when browsing the barefeats page, an ad for the Apple store advertising 'The New Power Mac G5 Quad - Shop Now' ... Not so new now :p

Some_Big_Spoon
Aug 15, 2006, 05:11 PM
Well, we all knew that the G5 isn't a "bad" chip necessarily.. It's older tech, and I think, wasn't really meant for this kind of work (non-server applications).

Preaching to the choir am I?

I would have thought that the Final Cut Pro benchmark would have really blown away the G5 - not so much, right?

Awesome on FileMaker and I can't wait to see how this stuff runs Adobe PS Natively.

FF_productions
Aug 15, 2006, 09:50 PM
Well, we all knew that the G5 isn't a "bad" chip necessarily.. It's older tech, and I think, wasn't really meant for this kind of work (non-server applications).

Preaching to the choir am I?

I actually want a G5 now that they have started coming down in price. I could get a dual g5 for a pretty good price, it sure is a step up from a Dual G4.

MacRumors
Aug 16, 2006, 10:33 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Barefeats provides (http://www.barefeats.com/quad06.html) benchmarks comparing the Quad 3GHz Mac Pro (Xeon) vs the Quad G5 2.5GHz Power Mac (G5). This represents the new top of the line vs the old top of the line Mac.

They provide benchmarks for both non-Universal and Universal applications between the Mac Pro 3GHz, Mac Pro 2.66GHz and PowerMac G5 Quad 2.5GHz.

The top-end Mac Pro performed well compared to the Quad G5 with both Photoshop CS2 and After Effects 7.0 despite running under Rosetta emulation on the Mac Pro. Universal upgrades to these applications should provide additional performance boosts.

Meanwhile, Universal applications iMovie HD 6, Final Cut Pro 5, FileMaker Pro 8.5 and Cinebench 9.5 generally showed substantial improvements even in the 2.66GHz Mac Pro vs the 2.5GHz PowerMac.

There's no doubt that both versions of the Mac Pro are faster than the G5 Quad-Core running Universal Binary apps like iMovie, Final Cut Pro, etc. As you can see from the four UB tests we ran in this session, the Mac Pro 2.66GHz was as much as 62% faster than the Quad-Core G5/2.5GHz. The Mac Pro 3.0GHz was as much as 85% faster.

Buschmaster
Aug 16, 2006, 10:36 PM
Was there any doubt it wouldn't be a lot faster? I mean, I know it was already plenty fast, but come on...

ssteve
Aug 16, 2006, 10:41 PM
Should we be surprised? I mean really this is good information, but it is does not really make me sit up and say "WOW". It is definitely interesting for the benchmarks. Thank you Steve for making the switch to Intel!

wmmk
Aug 16, 2006, 10:42 PM
Was there any doubt it wouldn't be a lot faster? I mean, I know it was already plenty fast, but come on...
Well, not all gigahertz are created equally, and not apps are universal.

p0intblank
Aug 16, 2006, 10:43 PM
Photoshop actually runs faster than I thought it would. :D

If only I could afford a Mac Pro... :(

Cooknn
Aug 16, 2006, 10:43 PM
I still love my PowerPC Mac. I'm gonna shed a tear some day when I retire it. This thing is rock solid and fast (enough) :cool:

aquanutz
Aug 16, 2006, 10:47 PM
all if have to say is: I want one (along with everyone else on this forum.) :D

ChrisA
Aug 16, 2006, 10:53 PM
My main interest is in FCP the FCP results.

On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?

I think movie editing depends a lot on the speed of the disk subsystem. After all Mini DV is 12GB per hour. That's a of data. When yo "scrub" a shot all that data has to move off the disk and onto the video card. Even with 16MB of RAM not much of the video data can be help in RAM. So the G5 and Intel machine have disks that are about the same speed. Speed of a disk is measured by how fast the bit fly under the read/write head not the interface speed. So I am not surprized the Intel Mac Pro is not hugly faster for video.

840quadra
Aug 16, 2006, 10:55 PM
I still love my PowerPC Mac. I'm gonna shed a tear some day when I retire it. This thing is rock solid and fast (enough) :cool:

I agree, Especially considering the fact that 4 months before I bought it, I was running on a Pentium 450 as a primary computer.

My goal is to buy a Quad G5 before the end of the year. I already have what is arguably the fastest 68k Mac (look at screen name for a clue) so I would like to also own the fastest PowerPC Mac Apple sold too.

gugy
Aug 16, 2006, 11:02 PM
That's great that Adobe apps runs well under Rosetta in the new Mac Pro.
It makes very tempting to buy one.
My only concern comes to any Rev.A of any hardware.
I'll wait and buy the next version of Mac Pro. I think then, even under Rosetta Adobe apps will fly in comparison to the Quad G5. Can't wait for the universal apps though.

MrCrowbar
Aug 16, 2006, 11:13 PM
I did...:D

DIE POWER PC...DIE!!!

ROFL. A true classic. ;)

shawnce
Aug 16, 2006, 11:21 PM
Still waiting for game benchmarks...
I think you will be happy with rather amazing performance boost you will see from WoW in the near future when running on a Mac Pro (it isn't all a result of just hardware either). Expect other games to improve as well.

greenstork
Aug 16, 2006, 11:21 PM
Video cards won't make a difference in FCP as of now if that's what you are asking performance wise. If you are using Motion/Games, anything that really feeds off the video card, then I'd go for the higher end video card.

Otherwise I'd go for the 2.6 ghz.

If Cloverton is a drop-in chip, I'd say definitely go for the 2.0 GHz as it appears to be upgradeable.

geerlingguy
Aug 16, 2006, 11:24 PM
When rendering in FCP, it's all about the CPU.

Fast hard drives contribute to real-time effects, but do NOT contribute to rendering.

Ram helps a little bit.

However, depending on what kind of rendering you're doing, the hard drive can be a limiting factor.

Say you're just rendering ten minutes worth of a blur effect on video—the CPU says 'gimme all you got' and goes to town on the frames, blurring each one quickly. But the hard drive may have a hard time keeping up with the CPU, because 10 minutes of footage needs to be read, then re-written to the drive. For HD-resolution video, that can be a couple gigs of data. And that data also has to pass through the RAM (which acts like a high-speed buffer).

However, in the case of these benchmarks, one would think the testers would choose some more CPU-intense rendering, which would allow the hard drive to take it's time while the CPU is overloaded with work.

But, to anyone configuring a graphics or video workstation: Everything—CPU, Hard Drives, RAM, and even the GPU for some tasks—should be as fast and ample as possible. "A chain is only as good as it's weakest link." If you pair up a Quad 3.0 GHz Xeon with a 5400 rpm USB 2.0 drive, you will be disappointed.

gugy
Aug 16, 2006, 11:28 PM
this is the paragraph from the article that makes more sense for Adobe users on the quad G5:

"SHOULD YOU BUY A MAC PRO?
Should you buy a new Mac Pro or a closeout or refurbished Quad-Core G5? If cost is a factor and you use non-UB pro apps (like Photoshop CS2), then we think the Quad-Core G5 is still a valid choice. After all, you can sell it on eBay when Photoshop CS3 is released and buy next year's "Octo-Core" Mac Pro."

It makes me itching now. I want a Mac Pro! :eek:
But I think wait for the "Octo-Core" will be rewarding alongside Adobe CS3.

geerlingguy
Aug 16, 2006, 11:29 PM
That's great that Adobe apps runs well under Rosetta in the new Mac Pro.
It makes very tempting to buy one.
My only concern comes to any Rev.A of any hardware.
I'll wait and buy the next version of Mac Pro. I think then, even under Rosetta Adobe apps will fly in comparison to the Quad G5. Can't wait for the universal apps though.

Always a judicious choice. I know that my Dad had about 6 months of little gripes with his DP G5 (1st generation) because of fan and 'buzzing' problems. He was kind of a 'beta tester' of the new hardware until a firmware update fixed his main problems.

Plus, if the 1st generation turns out to be reliable, you could get a used 1st gen. machine for a nice deal once the 2nd gen. machines are released!

lord patton
Aug 16, 2006, 11:31 PM
(sideshow bob)The Power PC...The!!!(/sideshow bob)

Bravo.

I don't know what ROFL stands for, but from context-clues, I'm thinking it means pretty damn funny. In which case, ROFL, dude.

WildCowboy
Aug 16, 2006, 11:32 PM
Bravo.

I don't know what ROFL stands for, but from context-clues, I'm thinking it means pretty damn funny. In which case, ROFL, dude.

Rolling On Floor Laughing

chatin
Aug 16, 2006, 11:58 PM
This poor cache design will kill off the G5's fast in rendering intensive workspaces.

The G5 has only 1MB of cache and it's per core not per cpu. If one core needs to cache 3.5MB of data it's possible on the Mac Pro becauce the CPU cache is fully unified.

I just ran Cinebench 9.5 on my Mac Pro and got 4 Cpu's Showing and a healthy 3.5 Ratio. (That means the CPU's are working together very well, thanks to the Intel Smart Cache.)

:) :p

bretm
Aug 16, 2006, 11:59 PM
I would have thought that the Final Cut Pro benchmark would have really blown away the G5 - not so much, right?

Awesome on FileMaker and I can't wait to see how this stuff runs Adobe PS Natively.

You're right. I'm extremely unimpressed that the fastest xeon only days old is actually slower mhz for mhz than a G5 that is pushing 4 year old technology. Really sad.

However it's bizarre that AE was actually faster under rosetta. I gotta think these tests were'nt very accurrate.

bretm
Aug 17, 2006, 12:07 AM
Was there any doubt it wouldn't be a lot faster? I mean, I know it was already plenty fast, but come on...

But it's not faster. Slower actually than the G5 at some apps. What's everyone looking at anyway? I'm pretty unimpressed. Other than Adobe's usage of cache (AE is a cache lover and will use all of it, hence the faster performance).

But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!

puckhead193
Aug 17, 2006, 12:27 AM
i went to my local apple store, and holy crap the thing is really fast. I'm tempted to get one, instead of an iMac, the only thing that's holding me back is the size.

avkills
Aug 17, 2006, 12:57 AM
That FCP test, sorry to say is a joke. Nobody cares about dropping in strange footage into a timeline with different attributes and rendering it.

Most of the time you drop footage that matches your timeline. In other words you don't drop DV25 footage into Uncompressed 10bit timelines unless that is all you have for the footage.

They should have added some color correction and maybe a motion effect and then rendered it. Oh well.

-mark

ezekielrage_99
Aug 17, 2006, 12:59 AM
This is a very dumb question but is Photoshop running under rosetta in this test?

If Photoshop is that is nuts.

WildCowboy
Aug 17, 2006, 01:01 AM
This is a very dumb question but is Photoshop running under rosetta in this test?

If Photoshop is that is nuts.

Yes...Photoshop can only run under Rosetta on the Intel machines...there's no universal version of it.

runninmac
Aug 17, 2006, 01:01 AM
This is a very dumb question but is Photoshop running under rosetta in this test?

If Photoshop is that is nuts.

Oh, please believe it is.


:eek:

jicon
Aug 17, 2006, 01:02 AM
Lots of stuff on Anandtech about the poor memory performance on the Intel chipset.

Looks like the Xeons got killed by the G5 in Word in their tests.
Might be an interesting machine when/if the motherboard chipset/ memory performance issue is looked in to.

I think part 3 of their review will be telling, paring the machine up to XP machines in a variety of tests.

shelterpaw
Aug 17, 2006, 01:05 AM
You're right. I'm extremely unimpressed that the fastest xeon only days old is actually slower mhz for mhz than a G5 that is pushing 4 year old technology. Really sad.

However it's bizarre that AE was actually faster under rosetta. I gotta think these tests were'nt very accurrate. Don't forget that these aps were recently ported to the Intel platform. we may see optimizations and speed improvements over time. Also, they only ran one test in FCP, they should have run many more.

JackSYi
Aug 17, 2006, 01:18 AM
CompUSA just got the Mac Pros in and we downloaded Quake 4 and ran it at the highest settings on the 30" ACD. Runs beautifully.

ezekielrage_99
Aug 17, 2006, 01:19 AM
Yes...Photoshop can only run under Rosetta on the Intel machines...there's no universal version of it.

It was just the performance was dam quick I just wasn't sure if there was an Intel version out or not, either way that is killer performance.

jrhone
Aug 17, 2006, 01:20 AM
I AM SOOOO HAPPY I ORDERED THIS MACHINE!!! Ordered it yesterday, custom with 2gb RAM, got shipping confirmation today, I'll have it tomorrow!!! If its ALMOST as fast as a quad G5, it will be MUCH faster than my Rev A dual 2.0 G5....

WildCowboy
Aug 17, 2006, 01:22 AM
It was just the performance was dam quick I just wasn't sure if there was an Intel version out or not, either way that is killer performance.

Absolutely...that's what's so impressive about the results for some of these non-universal apps. Just wait until the universal CS3 is available...the Mac Pro will destroy the Quad G5.

nsjoker
Aug 17, 2006, 01:41 AM
lol you mac folk and your photoshop :D
let's get some game benchmarks :rolleyes:

WildCowboy
Aug 17, 2006, 01:43 AM
lol you mac folk and your photoshop :D
let's get some game benchmarks :rolleyes:

A lot of folks are waiting for game benchmarks...bring 'em on!

ezekielrage_99
Aug 17, 2006, 02:01 AM
A lot of folks are waiting for game benchmarks...bring 'em on!

Yeah put up some World of Warcraft or Doom 3 results, that's what this is all about a Mac being the fastest gaming machine :cool:

sunfast
Aug 17, 2006, 02:07 AM
Awesome machine. Just awesome. I can't believe that photoshop test!

jicon
Aug 17, 2006, 02:11 AM
A lot of folks are waiting for game benchmarks...bring 'em on!

Does anyone seriously believe games today will show any significant improvement on a Mac Pro?

1. The video cards are underclocked compared to their PC equivalents on the Mac.
2. Generally, you are limited to a framerate of 60Hz anyway.
3. Most games are old ports, and need to run thru Rosetta.

When playing a game on a PC, you have DirectX to take full advantage of the hardware, and your processor is usually tagged consuming any and all cycles it can for the game. On a Mac, multithreading, and sharing the processor among apps seems to be the flow of the computing experience.

I'd predict a single Core2 Duo Extreme would still outdo a dual processor 3.0 Ghz Xeon Mac Pro when memory timings are nearly half of the Xeon on the Core2.

bep207
Aug 17, 2006, 02:35 AM
man that is impressive

the quad g5, once the fastest, has just taken a back seat -third row even

oingoboingo
Aug 17, 2006, 03:23 AM
But it's not faster. Slower actually than the G5 at some apps. What's everyone looking at anyway? I'm pretty unimpressed. Other than Adobe's usage of cache (AE is a cache lover and will use all of it, hence the faster performance).

But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!

I guess one extra thing to consider if you're taking that point of view is that the Quad 2.5GHz G5 costs US $3299 with 512MB RAM, and the Quad 2.66GHz MacPro only costs US $2499 with 1GB RAM, plus a superior case design. Even if the MacPro is only the same speed as the Quad G5, it's substantially cheaper.

And that can't be a bad thing.

gnasher729
Aug 17, 2006, 03:42 AM
I think movie editing depends a lot on the speed of the disk subsystem. After all Mini DV is 12GB per hour. That's a of data. When yo "scrub" a shot all that data has to move off the disk and onto the video card. Even with 16MB of RAM not much of the video data can be help in RAM. So the G5 and Intel machine have disks that are about the same speed. Speed of a disk is measured by how fast the bit fly under the read/write head not the interface speed. So I am not surprized the Intel Mac Pro is not hugly faster for video.

Mini DV is 3,600,000 bytes per second. That is nothing. That is just slightly above what a wireless network will do.

gnasher729
Aug 17, 2006, 03:44 AM
1. The video cards are underclocked compared to their PC equivalents on the Mac.


Could you give some evidence for that, except that they are underclocked on the MacBook Pro _when they are idle_?

gnasher729
Aug 17, 2006, 03:52 AM
Lots of stuff on Anandtech about the poor memory performance on the Intel chipset.

Looks like the Xeons got killed by the G5 in Word in their tests.
Might be an interesting machine when/if the motherboard chipset/ memory performance issue is looked in to.

I think part 3 of their review will be telling, paring the machine up to XP machines in a variety of tests.

Anandtech has one big omission: They didn't look at the CPU usage at all. Word doesn't use more than one CPU. And may I say it is damned hard to do anything in Word where CPU usage is of any concern; how often do you export a thousand page Word document to HTML?

These machines can do many things simultaneously. So what would have happened if you were converting a DVD using Handbrake in the background while doing the Word test? On the dual core G5, one CPU would have been used by Word, so Handbrake slows down by 50%. On the Quad core Xeon, one core would have been used by Word, so Handbrake slows down only by 25%.

DaveTheGrey
Aug 17, 2006, 03:55 AM
did you say, "die power pc, die"?
no that's german for:

(sideshow bob)The Power PC...The!!!(/sideshow bob)

the jury: "no one who speaks german can be an evil man" rofl

gnasher729
Aug 17, 2006, 03:57 AM
[QUOTE=jicon]Lots of stuff on Anandtech about the poor memory performance on the Intel chipset./QUOTE]

FB Dimms are not designed to give maximum bandwidth to one chip, they are designed to give maximum bandwidth to _four_ cores. Instead of having _one_ program running to test memory bandwidth, they should have started four copies of it and see what happens. That is what you have doubled front side bus, buffered memory and two separate memory units for. The biggest criticism in the past against Intel multi-CPU systems was that the memory bandwidth didn't scale; in the Mac Pro, it does.

Evangelion
Aug 17, 2006, 03:58 AM
But it's not faster. Slower actually than the G5 at some apps. What's everyone looking at anyway? I'm pretty unimpressed. Other than Adobe's usage of cache (AE is a cache lover and will use all of it, hence the faster performance).

But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!

There were handful of benchmarks. If we disregard the non-universal apps, we get this:

Xeon is a lot faster in iMovie
In FCP it's a bit faster
in FileMaker it's A LOT faster
in Cinebench it's considerably faster

Are those really such a bad results? The apps that it was slower in (but not by much) were running through emulation, is that a fair comparison?

Looking at the other reviews around the net, it becomes quite obvious that apart from few apps, Mac Pro is considerably faster tham PowerMac. In compiling for example, it walks all over the G5

elmimmo
Aug 17, 2006, 04:09 AM
It's frustrating to see all the work that anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=10) went through to make the benchmarks, for such a ****** comparison they decided to do in the first place.

They are comparing a 2 generations old G5 (Dual 2,5) versus a new Intel (Quad 2,6) which is not even the fastest out there. What kind of comparison is that? If the new Intels you are comparing against are all Quad based, the only reasonable G5 to compare against is the fastest one out there, the Quad G5 @2,5, because it is the fastest, and because it is even at core count. And they do not even mention it exists. And since you take the trouble to do so, compare fastest G5 against fastes Intel, gosh.

They could as well have compared any Mac Pro against an iMac DV…

Henri Gaudier
Aug 17, 2006, 04:34 AM
It's odd, seeing as Mac's are still the choice for many musicians that some kind of specs are never given that would be of interest to musicians. The released figures don't do much for me. I'd like to know the polyphony improvements say for Kontakt under both systems in Digital Performer 5. Other than, of course you can't because Mac have pulled the rugs out from the software developers feet again. Hence, the software doesn't exist yet. Anyway, the Intel should beat the G5. The Quad G5 is a year old and at the time of it's release it was considered disappointing because we'd had a 2.7 processor released 6 months before that ... so I think the expectation (And SJ promise) was for a Quad 3.0. Quad 2.5 was almost like a step back. Aren't these the results, more or less, that SJ promised 2 years ago? Only he's had to F about with our work flow yet again? Yeah great! In 18 months when everything has settled down and been revised a few times and the software has undergone some adjustments we'll all be coasting along and BAM .. Apple are switching again back to Freescale who are now world leaders. "The Freescale roadmap" say Steve Jobs " is very exciting...."

ictiosapiens
Aug 17, 2006, 04:37 AM
Does anyone seriously believe games today will show any significant improvement on a Mac Pro?

1. The video cards are underclocked compared to their PC equivalents on the Mac.
2. Generally, you are limited to a framerate of 60Hz anyway.
3. Most games are old ports, and need to run thru Rosetta.

When playing a game on a PC, you have DirectX to take full advantage of the hardware, and your processor is usually tagged consuming any and all cycles it can for the game. On a Mac, multithreading, and sharing the processor among apps seems to be the flow of the computing experience.

I'd predict a single Core2 Duo Extreme would still outdo a dual processor 3.0 Ghz Xeon Mac Pro when memory timings are nearly half of the Xeon on the Core2.


Bootcamp???

ictiosapiens
Aug 17, 2006, 04:39 AM
Could you give some evidence for that, except that they are underclocked on the MacBook Pro _when they are idle_?

And the Macbook... Nearly 50% underclocked, like the 950 was so amazing that it could be crippled by half of its mindblowing performance...

simie
Aug 17, 2006, 05:22 AM
I think that these tests are poor regardless of the results. Testing is all based on evidence and I see none, just what they say are the results.

When you run a test you normally document the process for the test conditions. You don't just say Photoshop CS2 - MP aware actions, but which ones - why didn't they use the Photoshop test.

"For FCP 5, we rendered a 20 second HD clip we had imported and dropped into a sequence."

Does this mean they imported a 20 second clip into a sequence and had to render the clip before it would play with the rest of the sequence.

They basically used the render tools in the sequence menu. Why measure something like that.

I would of thought that exporting a sequence of 20 seconds to create a HD clip might have been better and timed that.

gnasher729
Aug 17, 2006, 05:32 AM
They are comparing a 2 generations old G5 (Dual 2,5) versus a new Intel (Quad 2,6) which is not even the fastest out there. What kind of comparison is that?

If you want to know what is the fastest Mac, the comparison is no good. If you want to know whether you should upgrade your machine, the comparison makes a lot of sense. First, the 2.66 GHz Quad has the best price/performance ratio. If you start with the 2.0 GHz, you get 666 MHz more for $300, then you get another 333 MHz for a mere $800. So if you want to upgrade, the 2.66 is _the_ machine to buy. Second, there will be much less difference between a Quad G5 and a Quad Xeon. On performance critical Rosetta applications (like Photoshop) the Quad G5 will be stronger. In that case, it doesn't matter how much stronger - you won't upgrade, that is all that matters. But if you have a dual G5, then the question whether to upgrade or not is really interesting.

And we need to know whether apps use four cores or not. In many cases, changing from two threads to four threads is very easy (that is if all the threads to the same work; it is much harder if the threads do different work), but the app uses only two threads because most machines had only two CPUs. As an example, early versions of Handbrake didn't gain anything from Quad G5s; the CPUs were 50% idle all the time. People complained, and it was changed. The same thing will happen again, especially since _all_ Mac Pros have four cores.

glassbathroom
Aug 17, 2006, 08:13 AM
Edit: Please ignore this post, I can't count!!!

If you buy a Xeon 5160 (3.0GHz) at the moment they are £570. Apple are charging £530 to upgrade from Xeon 5150 (2.66GHz) to the Xeon 5160. Bearing in mind that you can probably sell the original 2.66Gz chip for around £300, it would be cheaper to buy the lower spec Mac Pro and upgrade yourself.

Forgive the £ for those that think in $.

KingYaba
Aug 17, 2006, 09:02 AM
Well the Quad is still the fastest when it comes to CS2. But man, once those are intel native that thing is going to fly at lightspeed.

sunfast
Aug 17, 2006, 09:07 AM
If you buy a Xeon 5160 (3.0GHz) at the moment they are £570. Apple are charging £530 to upgrade from Xeon 5150 (2.66GHz) to the Xeon 5160. Bearing in mind that you can probably sell the original 2.66Gz chip for around £300, it would be cheaper to buy the lower spec Mac Pro and upgrade yourself.

Forgive the £ for those that think in $.

Aren't there 2 chips though?

glassbathroom
Aug 17, 2006, 09:11 AM
Aren't there 2 chips though?

Doh! Yes, I new there was something wrong. Not planning on doing this anyway.

gnasher729
Aug 17, 2006, 09:17 AM
Edit: Please ignore this post, I can't count!!!

If you buy a Xeon 5160 (3.0GHz) at the moment they are £570. Apple are charging £530 to upgrade from Xeon 5150 (2.66GHz) to the Xeon 5160. Bearing in mind that you can probably sell the original 2.66Gz chip for around £300, it would be cheaper to buy the lower spec Mac Pro and upgrade yourself.

It's not something I would do myself, but some enterprising dealer could easily do that. In US prices, difference between two 3.00 GHz and two 2.66 GHz chips is roughly $300, and you could sell the 2.66 GHz ones at a premium because they had "extra burn-in testing" :-)

Seriously, the problem is getting money for the 2.66 chips.

BornAgainMac
Aug 17, 2006, 09:19 AM
Won't Adobe use Core Image when the Universal Binaries come out? If both Quads had the same high powered graphics card, the benchmarks may show them to be the same with Core Image tasks.

milo
Aug 17, 2006, 09:21 AM
You're right. I'm extremely unimpressed that the fastest xeon only days old is actually slower mhz for mhz than a G5 that is pushing 4 year old technology. Really sad.

But overall it's not. Whenever you change chips, you'll probably always find a benchmark that favors the old one. Just because one app isn't faster doesn't mean the new chip is slower.

But it's not faster. Slower actually than the G5 at some apps. What's everyone looking at anyway? I'm pretty unimpressed. Other than Adobe's usage of cache (AE is a cache lover and will use all of it, hence the faster performance).

But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!

What are you talking about? The xeon is faster in every native benchmark, the only exception is one render where the slower xeon tied the G5. If you do indeed look at the average specs, the xeons blow away the G5.

Looks like the Xeons got killed by the G5 in Word in their tests.

Because it's running under rosetta, ram has nothing to do with it.

It's odd, seeing as Mac's are still the choice for many musicians that some kind of specs are never given that would be of interest to musicians. The released figures don't do much for me. I'd like to know the polyphony improvements say for Kontakt under both systems in Digital Performer 5.

There have been Logic benchmarks elsewhere, and they're pretty impressive. 1.4-1.5x improvements, pretty nice considering how fast the quad is already for audio plugins.

killmoms
Aug 17, 2006, 09:24 AM
Won't Adobe use Core Image when the Universal Binaries come out? If both Quads had the same high powered graphics card, the benchmarks may show them to be the same with Core Image tasks.
Hah! Adobe can't even be bothered to make a Cocoa-native version of Photoshop on the Mac. They won't use Core Image because it's an OS X-only technology which can't be ported to Windows without them having to (essentially) write their own framework to mimic its functionality.

wmmk
Aug 17, 2006, 09:37 AM
Won't Adobe use Core Image when the Universal Binaries come out? If both Quads had the same high powered graphics card, the benchmarks may show them to be the same with Core Image tasks.
doubt it. because having core image would mean a totally seperate windows version. developing 2 totally different codebases would take forever.

BornAgainMac
Aug 17, 2006, 09:39 AM
I don't like Adobe anymore. :mad:

wmmk
Aug 17, 2006, 09:49 AM
I don't like Adobe anymore. :mad:
I dunno, I mean, I guess they could use core image, but really. CS3 will probably have PS, Illustrator, ID, FW, Flash, DW, CF, Contribute, Bridge and Acrobat. That's 10 apps. Would you want to develop 20 apps, just so that Mac users could have Core Image? Until competitors come along with Core Image support, don't expect Adobe to have it.

EricNau
Aug 17, 2006, 09:49 AM
I have to say, I actually expected the woodcrest results to be better. It really shows that the G5 was years ahead of the competition. :cool:

EricNau
Aug 17, 2006, 09:51 AM
I think that these tests are poor regardless of the results. Testing is all based on evidence and I see none, just what they say are the results.

When you run a test you normally document the process for the test conditions. You don't just say Photoshop CS2 - MP aware actions, but which ones - why didn't they use the Photoshop test.

"For FCP 5, we rendered a 20 second HD clip we had imported and dropped into a sequence."

Does this mean they imported a 20 second clip into a sequence and had to render the clip before it would play with the rest of the sequence.

They basically used the render tools in the sequence menu. Why measure something like that.

I would of thought that exporting a sequence of 20 seconds to create a HD clip might have been better and timed that.
It doesn't matter what the tests are if you are doing it for comparison. As long as it is done the same on both machines, who cares?

janstett
Aug 17, 2006, 10:08 AM
(sideshow bob)The Power PC...The!!!(/sideshow bob)

(silent bob)***** Power PC(/silent bob)


Note: OK, that reference is probably super obscure. Kevin Smith (aka Silent Bob) said in a commentary for one of his early LaserDiscs "***** DVD", obviously before the format took off the way it did).

gnasher729
Aug 17, 2006, 10:34 AM
It doesn't matter what the tests are if you are doing it for comparison. As long as it is done the same on both machines, who cares?

That is wrong.

Lets say I wrote some Altivec code to make some function faster on a 400 MHz G4, because on that machine it made a noticable difference. After porting to Intel, with the slowest machine (1.66 GHz Core Solo) being at least six times faster, I didn't bother. If you measure that code, you won't find too much difference in speed. It is the code that matters that matters.

63dot
Aug 17, 2006, 10:44 AM
Check it out!

http://barefeats.com/quad06.html


The 3 ghz Mac Pro is neck and neck with the G5 Quad in the Adobe benchmarks, sick considering the fact it's running under rosetta!!

when cs 3 comes out, which will be sometime in the spring of 2007 according to macworld magazine, the mac pro will be "hands down" the best machine across the board on "all" benchmarks concerning adobe software

let's hope we get cs 3 sooner rather than later in 2007 because i would hate to wait until late march

pc world, september issue, mentioned amd's plan for a quad core processor in 2007 and if that happens, some pc box will be faster than our best xeon powered machines...that is, he he, unless we get that quad core K8L amd with their 4x4 motherboard architecture which would enable a desktop to run two quads for a total of 8 amd cores (but the price of such a machine will debut at a very high price and probably won't directly compete with the mac pro)

but for now, apple has the best pro desktop machine dollar for dollar that i have seen and with cs 3 next year, it will be a designer's dream machine better than anything out there in its price range...at least for a few months ;)

SPUY767
Aug 17, 2006, 10:48 AM
I would have thought that the Final Cut Pro benchmark would have really blown away the G5 - not so much, right?

Awesome on FileMaker and I can't wait to see how this stuff runs Adobe PS Natively.

The vague manner in which they described the test, it seems like this may have been more of an I/O problem than a processing one. Can't say for sure.

shawnce
Aug 17, 2006, 11:05 AM
When playing a game on a PC, you have DirectX to take full advantage of the hardware, and your processor is usually tagged consuming any and all cycles it can for the game. On a Mac, multithreading, and sharing the processor among apps seems to be the flow of the computing experience. You should really do deeper analysis/research before making generally incorrect statements like the above.

Silentwave
Aug 17, 2006, 11:05 AM
pc world, september issue, mentioned amd's plan for a quad core processor in 2007 and if that happens, some pc box will be faster than our best xeon powered machines...that is, he he, unless we get that quad core K8L amd with their 4x4 motherboard architecture which would enable a desktop to run two quads for a total of 8 amd cores (but the price of such a machine will debut at a very high price and probably won't directly compete with the mac pro)


Um....that's why intel has quad core chips coming out...starting in *2006*
On the Xeon side, Clovertown, on the consumer side, kentsfield. Sometime in the first half of 2007 I believe we'll see Tigerton, which will be an even more formidable quad core xeon, capable of more than 2 processor configurations- so if apple gets a 3 socket logic board, or a 4 socket one, we could have 12 or 16 cores.

RUAerospace
Aug 17, 2006, 11:28 AM
Lots of stuff on Anandtech about the poor memory performance on the Intel chipset.

Looks like the Xeons got killed by the G5 in Word in their tests.
Might be an interesting machine when/if the motherboard chipset/ memory performance issue is looked in to.

I think part 3 of their review will be telling, paring the machine up to XP machines in a variety of tests.

Also from the Anandtech review (the reviewers conclusion actually):

The Mac Pro is pretty much everything the PowerMac G5 should have been. It's cooler, quieter, faster, has more expansion and it gives you more for your value than the older systems ever could.

From a performance standpoint, running OS X, the Mac Pro is truly Apple's fastest system by a long shot. Some of the performance advantages over the PowerMac G5 aren't enormous, but then you look at situations like iPhoto, Xcode or Final Cut Pro where the G5 is just put to shame. Rosetta performance is just about as good as it gets, the only real solution to that problem is for Adobe and Microsoft to hurry up and release updated software. Unfortunately since Apple isn't really a favorite of either company, it's not like greater than usual amounts of resources are being thrown at releasing new products specifically for the Mac platform.

The Core 2 also seems to be far faster than the G5 in the FCP comparison of this review. The 2.66 Ghz Pro (with the dual cores disabled to ensure balance) performed 60% better than the dual G5 system. Even the 2 GHz Core 2 model outperformed the G5 by a wide margin (and judging from the fact that the dual and quad configs had the same performance, I would wager that having quad cores makes no difference in this benchmark).

But it's not faster. Slower actually than the G5 at some apps. What's everyone looking at anyway? I'm pretty unimpressed. Other than Adobe's usage of cache (AE is a cache lover and will use all of it, hence the faster performance).

The only apps it is slower in are non-universal apps that haven't been optimized, once these become universal, you can expect it to be FAR faster than the G5 (seeing how it evens out or beats the G5 already).

But the actual xeon processors are only as fast as the G5 processors. Look at the average specs... the 2.66 machines are only a teeny bit faster than the G5s except in a few apps like filemaker. But not in the biggies like Final Cut Pro where it actually appears that mhz for mhz the G5 is a faster machine hands down!

That would be a very biased and inaccurate analysis of the comparison. Firstly, only a few benchmarks were used, its useless to discount all the benchmarks where the Core 2 are far faster and than put value only on the ONE benchmark where it is a bit faster (and even that particular benchmark is doubtful in accuracy given the fact that other reviews place the Core 2 as FAR faster in FCP) without any real reason. Secondly, the MHz to MHz comparison is useless as frankly, the core 2 architecture can scale far higher than the G5 as far as clock speeds go. Even the 3 GHz specification is barely pushing it and it shows in the fact of the significantly reduced power draw and heat dissipation in comparison to the G5.

I have to say, I actually expected the woodcrest results to be better. It really shows that the G5 was years ahead of the competition.

Besides FCP, Woodcrest beat the G5 by 30-80+% on every universal benchmark, thats a VERY wide margin when comparing ANY architecture over the past 2-3 years (just look at how much the performance of the G5 has developed over the years, upgrading to woodcrest would be comparable to upgrading to a 3.3-4 GHz G5). Barefeats own past comparisons showed that the 2.6 GHz Opteron was faster than the G5 in the majority of the benchmarks. I think at most, it can be argued the G5 was even with its competition.

Does anyone seriously believe games today will show any significant improvement on a Mac Pro?

There will be MASSIVE improvements over the G5 powermacs certainly. :D

It was just the performance was dam quick I just wasn't sure if there was an Intel version out or not, either way that is killer performance.

Yep, or right now, you could also run a PC version of CS2. As far as relative performance goes, a 2.6 GHz Opteron system beats the 2.5 GHz G5 quad by about ~16% in the barefeats photoshop comparison (http://www.barefeats.com/macvpc.html), a 3 GHz Core 2 beats a 2.8 GHz Athlon 64 by 20+%. Hardware-wise, there really is no comparison.

Summary:
I think everyone has to remember that Apple took a HUGE PR risk by switching to intel and that it would be foolish to think that they didn't have a VERY GOOD REASON for doing it. As much as RISC is loved here, there really is no compelling reason to think that the G5 architecture stands much of a chance in this comparison. Furthermore, it is foolish to assume that a "up-to-date" G5 would fare any better, firstly because IBM has never stopped developing the G5 (its primary usage was IBM blade servers after all) and secondly because the Core 2 architecture as it stands now isn't being pushed to perform at its maximum levels. In the end, arrogance and pride has never helped anyone, its time to let go.

Multimedia
Aug 17, 2006, 11:43 AM
My main interest is in FCP the FCP results.

On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?The 2GHz Mac Pro is 25% slower while the price is only 8.75% lower when you also lower the order $90 by making the HD a 160 instead of the 250 stock. 300GB SATA/300 drives are only $80 now. So I think it isn't really worth ordering the 2GHz model for that much less power for that little less money. For most of Final Cut Pro work you will not need the fancy video card. Motion is tne only thing that ATI card will help with. If you won't be using Motion a lot, the stock Mac Pro card will be fine.

The 3GHz model is just the opposite - 12.78% more power for 33% more money. Time is money has to be the reason for ordering the 3GHz model.

63dot
Aug 17, 2006, 11:46 AM
so if apple gets a 3 socket logic board, or a 4 socket one, we could have 12 or 16 cores.

now we are talking...processors get me so horny :)

i used to go bug my friend who worked in the field, in his past life, soldering very small widgets and thingies on motherboards and processors in the 80s and early 90s...he burned out and became a private investigator for way less money than an electrical engineer in the valley...but way more exciting since he gets to carry a gun (can anybody say midlife crisis?)

actually, my love of processors was not that great...i dropped out of a phd program in computer engineering specializing in mass networking equipment processors and chipsets...but those are in a totally different price range...and there are some exciting ideas in the world of processing using water molecules and string theory, but that's way out there right now

anyway, for my normal daily uses here at home, i am eyeing the 17" inch imac and that would actually be the best machine for me, dollar for dollar, and a truly fine machine to replace my five year old power mac

Multimedia
Aug 17, 2006, 12:01 PM
when cs 3 comes out, which will be sometime in the spring of 2007 according to macworld magazine, the mac pro will be "hands down" the best machine across the board on "all" benchmarks concerning adobe software

let's hope we get cs 3 sooner rather than later in 2007 because i would hate to wait until late march

pc world, september issue, mentioned amd's plan for a quad core processor in 2007 and if that happens, some pc box will be faster than our best xeon powered machines...that is, he he, unless we get that quad core K8L amd with their 4x4 motherboard architecture which would enable a desktop to run two quads for a total of 8 amd cores (but the price of such a machine will debut at a very high price and probably won't directly compete with the mac pro)

but for now, apple has the best pro desktop machine dollar for dollar that i have seen and with cs 3 next year, it will be a designer's dream machine better than anything out there in its price range...at least for a few months ;)I think Apple will add a Dual Clovertown processor option to the Mac Pro BTO page as soon as they can get them. I'm thinking it will be about a $1k option - Minus Two Woodcrests Plus Two Clovertowns = about $1k I thiink.Um....that's why intel has quad core chips coming out...starting in *2006*
On the Xeon side, Clovertown, on the consumer side, Kentsfield. Sometime in the first half of 2007 I believe we'll see Tigerton, which will be an even more formidable quad core xeon, capable of more than 2 processor configurations- so if apple gets a 3 socket logic board, or a 4 socket one, we could have 12 or 16 cores.I'll settle for Dual Clovertown or perhaps a Quad Tigerton - if it's only $2k more - when Leopard ships on board next Spring. :)

So I'm thinking the Dual Clovertown OctoCore will cost about $4,000 plus ram and the Sixteen Core Tigerton Setup about $6,000 plus ram. Is that a fair guess?

macenforcer
Aug 17, 2006, 12:08 PM
Wow, I'm really surprised by those photoshop tests. When those go universal I'm sure my jaw will drop


It will be exactly 25% faster in UB photoshop. How do I know? I tested in photoshop 7.01 in OS X and in XP on the mac pro. XP test was 25% faster. There you go.

gugy
Aug 17, 2006, 12:17 PM
"Sixteen Core Tigerton Setup about $6,000" :eek:

I want one!

epitaphic
Aug 17, 2006, 12:54 PM
The interesting thing to note from the Anandtech review is that to saturate a 2 core setup, all you need is one program. To saturate a quad, you need to be doing a bit more at the same time. To saturate an octo, you need to be doing a hell of a lot of things at the same time.

Now I don't know bout you lot, but there's only so much I can do at the same time. Sure it helps to be able to run anything I like and still use FCP with no performance hit. So I think a quad is perfect for that. But when it comes to 8+ cores, your actual workflow won't improve in the slightest unless it doesn't involve you having to do anything (eg run 4 instances of handbrake). I'm sure everyone once in a while has some work that can just be delegated to the CPU and it does its thing, but for the most part, where your attention and brain is needed, an 8 core will sit at least 50% idle.

Considering Clovertowns will have a slower, twice saturated FSB and lower clock speeds, most people will be better off (financially and productively) with Woodcrests. I'm just hoping that when octos are announced, the quads will drop in price.

Now if they start to optimise apps to take full advantage of more than 2 cores, that's a whole different ballgame ;)

gnasher729
Aug 17, 2006, 12:59 PM
The interesting thing to note from the Anandtech review is that to saturate a 2 core setup, all you need is one program. To saturate a quad, you need to be doing a bit more at the same time. To saturate an octo, you need to be doing a hell of a lot of things at the same time.

No, you only need software that doesn't think multiple processors = two processors. Early versions of Handbrake used only two processors, new version uses four. Photoshop will use as many processors as there are. Other applications will follow.

erockerboy
Aug 17, 2006, 01:07 PM
Great post - you said it all.



I think everyone has to remember that Apple took a HUGE PR risk by switching to intel and that it would be foolish to think that they didn't have a VERY GOOD REASON for doing it. As much as RISC is loved here, there really is no compelling reason to think that the G5 architecture stands much of a chance in this comparison. Furthermore, it is foolish to assume that a "up-to-date" G5 would fare any better, firstly because IBM has never stopped developing the G5 (its primary usage was IBM blade servers after all) and secondly because the Core 2 architecture as it stands now isn't being pushed to perform at its maximum levels. In the end, arrogance and pride has never helped anyone, its time to let go.

hadleydb
Aug 17, 2006, 01:15 PM
I need one... or is it more of a want? Need.:eek:

Multimedia
Aug 17, 2006, 01:59 PM
The interesting thing to note from the Anandtech review is that to saturate a 2 core setup, all you need is one program. To saturate a quad, you need to be doing a bit more at the same time. To saturate an octo, you need to be doing a hell of a lot of things at the same time.Not so. I can only run one compression process at a time on the Quad G5 unless I want the speed of that process and others I want to run at the same time to be compromized. Both Toast and Handbrake can use 4 cores EACH.Now I don't know bout you lot, but there's only so much I can do at the same time.This is the place where you are misunderstanding how LITTLE one can do with only 4 cores. Sure it helps to be able to run anything I like and still use FCP with no performance hit. So I think a quad is perfect for that. But when it comes to 8+ cores, your actual workflow won't improve in the slightest unless it doesn't involve you having to do anything (eg run 4 instances of handbrake). I'm sure everyone once in a while has some work that can just be delegated to the CPU and it does its thing, but for the most part, where your attention and brain is needed, an 8 core will sit at least 50% idle.Not from where I'm sitting. The opposite is true for me.Considering Clovertowns will have a slower, twice saturated FSB and lower clock speeds, most people will be better off (financially and productively) with Woodcrests. I'm just hoping that when octos are announced, the quads will drop in price.But speed is not our problem. Apps already capable of saturating 4 cores need more cores to run simultaneously without compromising speed.Now if they start to optimise apps to take full advantage of more than 2 cores, that's a whole different ballgame ;)That is what has already happened. You were unaware of that fact. So yes, it is a whole different ballgame already. :eek:

ImAlwaysRight
Aug 17, 2006, 02:30 PM
Show.. me.. the.. games...

LOL, us gamers all sound kinda like broken records :)
And for what purpose? Would any of you drop the $3500 needed to upgrade to the latest Mac Pro? Or is it just the drool factor, like when you look through Car and Driver and drool over an $80K sports car?

Liske
Aug 17, 2006, 02:42 PM
I have a new 3.0 Intel- just letting you know they are not as close as Rob's test under real world performance. Adobe camera raw really screamed on my G5 and is noticibly slower and a bit buggy on my new Mac Pro. Start up is alot slower, etc, etc. He only tested MP aware processes which isn't the whole picture.

The Photo Retouch artist test puts the Mac Pro 3.0 about 33% slower than the quad G5- but I think that test is skewered to the G5s liking. I think it's somewhere in the real world realm of 12% slower than my G5 quad. Not quite as good under Rosetta [5%?] that Rob posts, but not quite as bad as some other tester's results. The finder and other apps are noticebly faster, even against the fast quad.

I went for the mac pro as a web designer able to run windoze now. CS2 gets some but not alot of excersize. Other comparisons- the storage is awesome, super easy, super quiet. This machine is about 75% the noise of my G5, add the quiet firmtek 2 drive SATA i ran with the quad, and the Mac Pro is about 50% quieter. [By the way if anyone needs a 2 drive firmtek external SATA II case with PCIe card and cables, it is looking for a new home now. It was a great case for the g5 and is about 6 months old- http://www.amug.org/amug-web/html/amug/reviews/articles/firmtek/2en2/]

My 2 cents!

mac Pro 3.0
3bg ram
2 x 2 drive stripe raids
Std graphics card.

Macinposh
Aug 17, 2006, 02:55 PM
I have a new 3.0 Intel- just letting you know they are not as close as Rob's test under real world performance. Adobe camera raw really screamed on my G5 and is noticibly slower and a bit buggy on my new Mac Pro. Start up is alot slower, etc, etc. He only tested MP aware processes which isn't the whole picture.


Have you used cs2s or canon´s raw converters? How do they work?
What is the general feeling of yours how the new machine works in photog business?




2 x 2 drive stripe raids.

So you have 4hdds in total,with 2 of each in raid 0 or what?
Do you have the os on one pair and scratch on the other pair?


Ordering the new rig in couple of weeks,so i am buggin you now.

THX1139
Aug 17, 2006, 03:22 PM
I don't like Adobe anymore. :mad:

They have become the Microsoft of the graphics world. See what having lots of money can do to you? Makes you cocky. That's one big reason I don't want Apple to gain much more market share. I want them to have just enough to keep them working hard... not so much to make them fat and lazy and greedy.

iMikeT
Aug 17, 2006, 03:28 PM
I'll just wait until the 4GHZ Mac Pro. I wonder what that bad boy can do.:rolleyes:

wmmk
Aug 17, 2006, 03:32 PM
And for what purpose? Would any of you drop the $3500 needed to upgrade to the latest Mac Pro? Or is it just the drool factor, like when you look through Car and Driver and drool over an $80K sports car?
Some people do things called graphic design and video editing for a living. Sometimes, when you want to make money and put food on the table, you want top of the line equipment.:rolleyes:

OSXconvert
Aug 17, 2006, 03:32 PM
It will be exactly 25% faster in UB photoshop. How do I know? I tested in photoshop 7.01 in OS X and in XP on the mac pro. XP test was 25% faster. There you go.

Macenforcer, that's a good estimate based on PS7, but we have no idea how much Adobe will optimize the code in CS3.

The thing that makes the Mac vs PC battle so interesting now is that the hardware is essentially the same. So the differences will come down to the hardware drivers and the software and OS optimizations. Though I'd love to see Adobe preferentially optimize the UB code for CS3, I doubt they will financially risk it being much better than Windows. As much as I love the OSX interface better than Windows, I suspect that the deeper pockets of Microsoft will be able to ensure that Vista and CS3 remain neck and neck competitive if not superior in pure performance to Leopard and CS3. Before, when Apple had Motorola's and IBM's chips, things like vector processing speed shone on the Mac, but now the playing field is totally level.

Though it was a smart move to increase marketshare when Apple switched to Intel, it may actually hurt the high-end pro market because all pro machines will be running on the best Intel processors. Choosing, say AMD, over Intel might have been a wiser choice: Apple would have gotten PC compatibility with the possibility of increased performance or Mac customization which would have made the pro machines really scream compared to Windows.

From now on, whatever processor Apple has, Windows has, and the differences will come down mostly on the OS. I do have to tip my hat to Apple for developing BootCamp, because now we as Apple users get the best of both worlds.

Multimedia
Aug 17, 2006, 03:51 PM
Some people do things called graphic design and video editing for a living. Sometimes, when you want to make money and put food on the table, you want top of the line equipment.:rolleyes:Yes. I agree totally. If you are making your living with your Mac doing graphics and video work, every minute saved is another minute you can take on another client or meet a perviously impossible deadline. So in that case the extra $850 is made up in a matter of a few weeks or months at worst. Totally understandable when time is money for the Mac professional. :)

gugy
Aug 17, 2006, 03:56 PM
They have become the Microsoft of the graphics world. See what having lots of money can do to you? Makes you cocky. That's one big reason I don't want Apple to gain much more market share. I want them to have just enough to keep them working hard... not so much to make them fat and lazy and greedy.


Wow, interesting.

I think Adobe is actually pretty good upgrading their software. As for Photoshop, Illustrator and After Effects they seem to do major upgrades every 18 months. I think is very reasonable. Plus is a normal thing when you are on the top to slow down a little, and frankly I don't think they are doing that.
CS3 will be here next year alongside possibly with After Effects, so what's your problem with Adobe?

As for Microsoft, I agreed that they are very slow when it comes to Office suite for Mac.

THX1139
Aug 17, 2006, 03:57 PM
Some people do things called graphic design and video editing for a living. Sometimes, when you want to make money and put food on the table, you want top of the line equipment.:rolleyes:

Calm down. The OP was directing his question towards gamers. I agree with him, why salivate over a Macpro and whine for games when it's clear that the Macpro isn't intended for that kind of user. If I were a games enthusiast, I'd build my own custom PC that would be optimized for gaming performance. Apple is ignoring this segment of the market. For those of us who need to get real work done, the Macpro is a great machine. It will play games, but don't try hauling to a Lan party. You'll probably get laughed at.

Do you see now?

Bengt77
Aug 17, 2006, 04:11 PM
I'll just wait until the 4GHZ Mac Pro. I wonder what that bad boy can do.:rolleyes:
Yeah. I'm waiting for the 16GHz Mac Pro Super Duper Ultra Extreme. Boy, you don't even want to know what that machine will be able to do...

milo
Aug 17, 2006, 04:29 PM
Some people do things called graphic design and video editing for a living. Sometimes, when you want to make money and put food on the table, you want top of the line equipment.:rolleyes:

I guess you missed that he was responding to someone talking about gaming? Less eye rolling, more paying attention.

To make more money faster.Yes. I agree totally. If you are making your living with your Mac doing graphics and video work, every minute saved is another minute you can take on another client or meet a perviously impossible deadline. So in that case the extra $850 is made up in a matter of a few weeks or months at worst. Totally understandable when time is money for the Mac professional. :)

Ditto.

greenstork
Aug 17, 2006, 05:14 PM
So you have 4hdds in total,with 2 of each in raid 0 or what?
Do you have the os on one pair and scratch on the other pair?


Just out of curiosity, is it even possible to configure a RAID 10 or 01 on OS X setup without a dedicated controller card? I was planning to configure a RAID 1 (two 500 GB drives) on my Mac Pro for the sake of redundancy, but with 4 drives bays to play with, a RAID 10 or 01 might be a little faster if I understand the technology correctly. Anyone?

greenstork
Aug 17, 2006, 05:26 PM
Calm down. The OP was directing his question towards gamers. I agree with him, why salivate over a Macpro and whine for games when it's clear that the Macpro isn't intended for that kind of user. If I were a games enthusiast, I'd build my own custom PC that would be optimized for gaming performance. Apple is ignoring this segment of the market. For those of us who need to get real work done, the Macpro is a great machine. It will play games, but don't try hauling to a Lan party. You'll probably get laughed at.

Do you see now?

With no intention of jumping into the argument in question here, I have a slight issue with your definition of a gamer. I'm an intermediate photoshop user, web designer, and gamer. I don't just use my computer for games or work, there's this huge gray area in the middle. For me, the Mac Pro is the best of all worlds. I wouldn't dare rely on Windows for my workflow, design, and productivity software, OS X is a must for me. However, the ability to duat boot into Windows and play games natively is a bonus, one that I'm willing to pay a premium for, and whether or not it's even a premium is up for debate. Sure, I could build a PC just for games but if I can't run OS X ever then that machine is useless for me.

I'd be surprised if there weren't many more people out there who welcome the power of the Mac Pros for work and play, recognizing of course that the majority of buyers will be professionals.

63dot
Aug 17, 2006, 05:33 PM
With no intention of jumping into the argument in question here, I have a slight issue with your definition of a gamer. I'm an intermediate photoshop user, web designer, and gamer. I don't just use my computer for games or work, there's this huge gray area in the middle. For me, the Mac Pro is the best of all worlds. I wouldn't dare rely on Windows for my workflow, design, and productivity software, OS X is a must for me. However, the ability to duat boot into Windows and play games natively is a bonus, one that I'm willing to pay a premium for, and whether or not it's even a premium is up for debate. Sure, I could build a PC just for games but if I can't run OS X ever then that machine is useless for me.

I'd be surprised if there weren't many more people out there who welcome the power of the Mac Pros for work and play, recognizing of course that the majority of buyers will be professionals.

well said

as for xp vs. os x, i can live with xp if i had to and do the adobe stuff on it, but i would always be looking over my shoulder for viruses and junk filling up my machine every time i went online

i would also have to invest in a virus suite and keep the darn thing updated all the time

all i have ever put on macs has been anti-virus and have never run into any problems and as for even seeing a virus on an unprotected mac, as a tech for 7 years, i haven't

i do love that "mac dude and pc dude" commercial campaign that apple has been putting out and i hope some pc only users see the light

Liske
Aug 17, 2006, 07:00 PM
Have you used cs2s or canon´s raw converters? How do they work?
What is the general feeling of yours how the new machine works in photog business?

I use CS2 for camera raw. Right now I am shooting with a fuji finepix S2 pro, but probably going to get the D200 soon. The Canon stuff is nice too, but I haven't tried the Canon raw converter. I love adobe camera raw - it just works for me. I have yet to try aperature but might try to get my hands on it. Camera Raw runs well on the Mac Pro, but like I said 10% faster on the Quad. It doesn't impact me much, and I get to boot windoze to cross test and develop items on a PC for web stuff :)


So you have 4hdds in total,with 2 of each in raid 0 or what?
Do you have the os on one pair and scratch on the other pair?


Yes I run one striped two disk raid for OSX ONLY. This disk is also the scratch disk. The other striped two disk raid is for my user data and apps. You can find info on the web about how to do this, there are alot of advantages.

This way I have seperate raid for user data & files, and a seperate raid for OSX / scratch. It seperates the OS and apps also so both have their own disks. Seperating the OS from my user data allows me to only back up the user data raid as the OS raid has base OSX on it only and if lost could just be reinstalled. I backup the main user data disk to the osx disk, as well as a slow NAT storage in a seperate building nightly. As far as RAID Once you go raid you get addicted, I could go nuts and get a 4 or 8 drive raid, which at some point I probably will do, but right now the 2 x 2 striped treat me very fine :). But the speed impovements in a raid, especially in a Mac Pro where it is so easy, is worth it. At this point the sweet spot in terms of dollars is probably going with a 300 or 400 x 4, the 500s are still pretty high, but if you need the space then so be it.

filmguy
Aug 17, 2006, 07:16 PM
From now on, whatever processor Apple has, Windows has, and the differences will come down mostly on the OS.

I agree with your post and I'm also a PC-TO-MAC CONVERT. :)

The difference is going to come down to OS, as well as, the overall design of a machine and how well it's engineered. Apple seem to engineer machines of high quality, from the mere fact that their machines stand the test of time e.g. the other day I was working on a G4, on FCP 5.1, editing and rendering HDV footage in its native format, HDV1080i50 (Australian Sony camera). Although it wasn't the quickest performance, it held its own.

Also, I'm an I.T. guy transitioning to film (pre-prod, shoot, and post-prod) and the whole Mac experience is different from a PC, from a creative workflow point-of-view. I bought MY FIRST MAC this week - Mac Pro, 3 Ghz, 2 Gig RAM, 250 Gig HD, standard video card, and previously owned 2 x 300 Gig Ext Maxtor 7200 RPM. I also bought AE 7, Adobe Web Bundle and FCP Studio 5.1. I shoot with the Sony Z1P and will soon have some sample work on the web.

Lastly, OS X will always be superior to Windows based on the fact that it's built on a UNIX foundation. If I'm not mistaken, Windows code has just built on top of existing code year-after-year. :mad: I think the OS X was a fresh build.

63dot
Aug 17, 2006, 08:21 PM
Lastly, OS X will always be superior to Windows based on the fact that it's built on a UNIX foundation. If I'm not mistaken, Windows code has just built on top of existing code year-after-year. :mad: I think the OS X was a fresh build.

windows has been, in the past building on existing code for many years and the last incarnation was windows ME, which followed windows 3.x, 95, 98, and 98SE

windows XP is built from windows 2000 which was built from windows NT which was written in what microsoft calls "NT" code, similar to UNIX but not as good, but more stable than the widely used windows 95/98

and os x is superior, and easier to use, than anything from microsoft

Silentwave
Aug 17, 2006, 10:18 PM
I use CS2 for camera raw. Right now I am shooting with a fuji finepix S2 pro, but probably going to get the D200 soon. The Canon stuff is nice too, but I haven't tried the Canon raw converter. I love adobe camera raw - it just works for me. I have yet to try aperature but might try to get my hands on it. Camera Raw runs well on the Mac Pro, but like I said 10% faster on the Quad. It doesn't impact me much, and I get to boot windoze to cross test and develop items on a PC for web stuff :)
Just a suggestion, as a user of the D200 since it came out, I would like to suggest you use a raw converter other than CS2. Bibble and Nikon Capture 4.4/Nikon Capture NX do much better jobs at D200 raw files particularly in terms of color and high ISO noise. With ACR, there is heaps of noise that just isn't there with other converters. Plus the NR leaves terrible artifacts on D200 shots.

Silentwave
Aug 17, 2006, 10:27 PM
I'll just wait until the 4GHZ Mac Pro. I wonder what that bad boy can do.:rolleyes:

I wonder if they'll even bother to go to 4GHz anytime soon. the roadmap is for more cores. We have on the roadmap DP and MP (>2 chips) capable Quad-core chips starting to come out by the end of this year/early next year. The next step is 8+ core chips. The next Xeon is Clovertown, which is just Woodcrest scaled to 4 cores with a few changes in clock and FSB etc. Tigerton comes next, also 4 cores but MP capable (3+ chips possible) and with a possibility of increased FSB speed, bigger L2 cache and so on. Its successor, Dunnington, will be a 45nm chip with between 4 and 32 cores depending on who you believe.

Liske
Aug 17, 2006, 11:56 PM
Just a suggestion, as a user of the D200 since it came out, I would like to suggest you use a raw converter other than CS2. Bibble and Nikon Capture 4.4/Nikon Capture NX do much better jobs at D200 raw files particularly in terms of color and high ISO noise. With ACR, there is heaps of noise that just isn't there with other converters. Plus the NR leaves terrible artifacts on D200 shots.

Silent, thanks for speaking up, I'll check it out! Too bad its not UB.

shawnce
Aug 18, 2006, 02:02 AM
Lastly, OS X will always be superior to Windows based on the fact that it's built on a UNIX foundation. If I'm not mistaken, Windows code has just built on top of existing code year-after-year. :mad: I think the OS X was a fresh build.

Mac OS X is built on top of a LOT of existing code from inside Apple and outside Apple.

You may want to review the lineage of Mac OS X in the history of unix (http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html#21).

Anyway aspects of Mac OS X are far far older then Windows (not that that is a bad thing) and aspects of Mac OS X are more modern/recent then what Windows currently has (of course Windows has several things more modern then Mac OS X).

dante@sisna.com
Aug 18, 2006, 04:40 AM
My goal is to buy a Quad G5 before the end of the year. I already have what is arguably the fastest 68k Mac (look at screen name for a clue) so I would like to also own the fastest PowerPC Mac Apple sold too.


Yes, I love my Quad G5 -- ROCK Solid. I agree with you.

And my MAC PRO 3.0 is on the way. But this Quad G5, still a great box -- highly recommend.

DJO

Evangelion
Aug 18, 2006, 04:44 AM
I have to say, I actually expected the woodcrest results to be better. It really shows that the G5 was years ahead of the competition. :cool:

On some tasks, it was. Overall, it was merely competetive with what was available on the x86-world at the time (Opteron etc.). The difference was that G4 was getting massacred by x86, G5 restored parity.

Yes, G5 whooped ass on some benchmarks. And lost in some other benchmarks. But at least it wasn't getting it's ass whooped all the time and everywhere ;)

Evangelion
Aug 18, 2006, 04:44 AM
Yes, I love my Quad G5 -- ROCK Solid. I agree with you.

Untill the cooling-solution starts to leak fluids, that is ;)?

dante@sisna.com
Aug 18, 2006, 04:53 AM
Untill the cooling-solution starts to leak fluids, that is ;)?

Not likely to happen.

I have used liquid cooling setups in my PC's that were not nearly as well built as the AC Delco inpired Quad G5 without any problems for more than 5 years running.

Besides, my $99 a year apple care will more than cover this.

There are minimal to no reports of problems with the Quad G5 cooling system. I've run 3 of these for nearly 9 months with no problems.

DJO

Evangelion
Aug 18, 2006, 05:50 AM
Not likely to happen.

Maybe, maybe not. Fact remains that the liquid-cooling in the G5 Quad is very complex beast. And more complex things get, the more likely they are to break.

There are minimal to no reports of problems with the Quad G5 cooling system. I've run 3 of these for nearly 9 months with no problems.

A whole 9 months? Those systems are supposed to last for years.

epitaphic
Aug 18, 2006, 06:09 AM
A whole 9 months? Those systems are supposed to last four years.
;)

epitaphic
Aug 18, 2006, 06:22 AM
Apps already capable of saturating 4 cores need more cores to run simultaneously without compromising speed.That is what has already happened. You were unaware of that fact. So yes, it is a whole different ballgame already. :eek:
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/mac%20pro_081406100848/12798.png

I think this speaks for itself.

When I'm working on one project, that's all my attention to it. When I'd like to encode it, I'd like my however many cores to be at full blast. Sadly, that's not happening at the moment and will remain so until they rewrite h264 encoding.

Like I said, unless people are doing what you do (sending multiple files to be encoded at the same time all the time) they won't benefit from 4, 8, 100 cores.

Now if anyone can show benchmarks that show FCP being 40-50% faster on a quad than on a dual when working on a project, I'll shut up :)

MACMUSO
Aug 18, 2006, 08:26 AM
I do find it interested how agressive you are all being regarding G5vsIntel. Any serious mac professional would never run out and buy the first of a new machine expecially with a new chip and new software - complete lunacy - if you value your ability to get work done on a trusted set-up. The intel may be fast but for most professional musicians it's pointless until all of the software is compatible - Native instruments have a long way to go yet and most of us use their apps. And to conclude - having the fastest machine and bragging about it whie dissing the old machine don't make you any good at using it.

RIP.

Multimedia
Aug 18, 2006, 08:53 AM
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/mac%20pro_081406100848/12798.png

I think this speaks for itself.

When I'm working on one project, that's all my attention to it. When I'd like to encode it, I'd like my however many cores to be at full blast. Sadly, that's not happening at the moment and will remain so until they rewrite h264 encoding.

Like I said, unless people are doing what you do (sending multiple files to be encoded at the same time all the time) they won't benefit from 4, 8, 100 cores.

Now if anyone can show benchmarks that show FCP being 40-50% faster on a quad than on a dual when working on a project, I'll shut up :)That chart speaks for NOTHING. Comparing a Mac Pro to old 2004 single core Dual G5 PowerMacs is a completely irrelevant and spurious "test". This entire review is flawed by the missing Quad G5. BTW I don't use H.264 at all ever.

63dot
Aug 18, 2006, 09:04 AM
Untill the cooling-solution starts to leak fluids, that is ;)?

i will also chime in on this one and say it's not likely to happen

many years before the G5 was liquid cooled, amd tried liquid cooling with some of their mobile processors and found the idea was not practical for reasons not disclosed and, at that time, dropped the project

later on, amd, like others, simply resorted to better designed, cooler chips and that solved overheating

bokdol
Aug 18, 2006, 09:05 AM
what i dont get sometimes is how people get so excited over how these intel machines are better the the powerpc. and most of these are from recently converted mac users. screaming about how much better intel is. but i hope some people out there realize of couse these machine will be fast. it's called technology. it advances as time goes by. a newer topend machine SHOULD be better.

now the question is really how much better should new technology be compared to 2 3 year old tech? was it a big enough jump. yeah the case design is friken awesome. but sheesh all this pro intel babble is foolish. it's like saying my 486 is better then my comodore 64.

or maybe i am just sad that my 1.8 g5 single just went to the stone age...........

and if you guys have old powermac g5 dualcore sitting around because you got a new mac pro. i'll help you dispose of it no problem. i'll even do it for free. ;)

mashinhead
Aug 18, 2006, 09:17 AM
If one were to buy a mac pro now, is the processor upgradeable to Clovertown in the future, or is that not really worth it even if it is, because you would need a faster FSB, meaning a new logic board, to take advantage of its power?

63dot
Aug 18, 2006, 09:21 AM
and if you guys have old powermac g5 dualcore sitting around because you got a new mac pro. i'll help you dispose of it no problem. i'll even do it for free. ;)

hey bokdol, you and i can start a business and help all the intel mac pro users dispose of their old G5 power macs

we can go into business :)

bokdol
Aug 18, 2006, 09:21 AM
If one were to buy a mac pro now, is the processor upgradeable to Clovertown in the future, or is that not really worth it even if it is, because you would need a faster FSB, meaning a new logic board, to take advantage of its power?


i think it is socket 775 or what ever. and if clovertown is pin compatable it will work. i think the processor will have to deal with the slower bus. as long as it is pin compatible.

bokdol
Aug 18, 2006, 09:22 AM
hey bokdol, you and i can start a business and help all the intel mac pro users dispose of their old G5 power macs

we can go into business :)


i'm in
we can start today

63dot
Aug 18, 2006, 09:26 AM
i'm in
we can start today


you take everything east of kansas and i will take the western region of the usa

when we have enough money, i can go raid asia and australia/new zealand for old G5s and you can go after europe and the middle east

when we are done we will be rich and could sit on the same oil board as bin laden, dick cheney, and several of the bush family members

and based on who is taller, one of us could be dr. evil and the other one will be mini me

sound good?

mashinhead
Aug 18, 2006, 09:34 AM
if clovertown is pin compatable it will work.

I know if it is it will work, what i'm asking is, is it? Or is that not known at this time?

bokdol
Aug 18, 2006, 09:48 AM
I know if it is it will work, what i'm asking is, is it? Or is that not known at this time?


http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/06/27/woodcrest_servers_are_covertown_servers/

i guess it will be

bokdol
Aug 18, 2006, 09:48 AM
you take everything east of kansas and i will take the western region of the usa

when we have enough money, i can go raid asia and australia/new zealand for old G5s and you can go after europe and the middle east

when we are done we will be rich and could sit on the same oil board as bin laden, dick cheney, and several of the bush family members

and based on who is taller, one of us could be dr. evil and the other one will be mini me

sound good?



damn and i wanted asia... ahh but europe wont be too bad. damn it i am 5'7 so i might end up with the short end of the stick.

Silentwave
Aug 18, 2006, 10:17 AM
I know if it is it will work, what i'm asking is, is it? Or is that not known at this time?

Not known. There might be other concerns apart from the socket compatibility: FSB, firmware, and in particular the heat output.

Silentwave
Aug 18, 2006, 10:21 AM
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/mac%20pro_081406100848/12798.png

I think this speaks for itself.

When I'm working on one project, that's all my attention to it. When I'd like to encode it, I'd like my however many cores to be at full blast. Sadly, that's not happening at the moment and will remain so until they rewrite h264 encoding.

Like I said, unless people are doing what you do (sending multiple files to be encoded at the same time all the time) they won't benefit from 4, 8, 100 cores.

Now if anyone can show benchmarks that show FCP being 40-50% faster on a quad than on a dual when working on a project, I'll shut up :)


Or maybe they have?


Didn't FCP just get updated to optimize it for the Mac Pro?

I think they need the latest version over there and should rerun the test.

Multimedia
Aug 18, 2006, 10:31 AM
If one were to buy a mac pro now, is the processor upgradeable to Clovertown in the future, or is that not really worth it even if it is, because you would need a faster FSB, meaning a new logic board, to take advantage of its power?I'm sure you know this. But just a reminder that you would be dealing with an extremely fragile and tricky upgrade process that could destroy your motherboard or fry the processor without the latest cooling system from Apple. Just my own caution against attempting this. Not worth the risk I think. There will be a better video card with the Dual Clovertown Mac Pro as well as other changes to the system fixing bugs discovered between now and then. Too many changes in the works for me to want to fool with such a complex system.

63dot
Aug 18, 2006, 10:52 AM
damn and i wanted asia... ahh but europe wont be too bad. damn it i am 5'7 so i might end up with the short end of the stick.

we are the same height...we can call ourselves the "toxic twins"

epitaphic
Aug 18, 2006, 10:55 AM
That chart speaks for NOTHING. Comparing a Mac Pro to old 2004 single core Dual G5 PowerMacs is a completely irrelevant and spurious "test"
Nah, man, you're missing the point of the chart:

http://twoholepunch.com/quad_vs_dual.gif

Thats showing that the quad core Mac Pro is essentially the same speed as dual core Mac Pro. To translate it to normal mac scenario: If apple releases a 2.66GHz Conroe iMac/Mac/whathaveyou it will be able to crunch through FCP/Photoshop/etc faster than a Mac Pro because it can use regular DDR2 and won't suffer from horrendous memory latency.

The only way a quad Woodcrest or octo Clovertown is superior is if you're doing exactly what you do: send a bunch of things to be encoded at the same time. Video editing is a small part of the professional market. People who only encode videos day in and out are an even smaller group.

gnasher729
Aug 18, 2006, 03:31 PM
Thats showing that the quad core Mac Pro is essentially the same speed as dual core Mac Pro. To translate it to normal mac scenario: If apple releases a 2.66GHz Conroe iMac/Mac/whathaveyou it will be able to crunch through FCP/Photoshop/etc faster than a Mac Pro because it can use regular DDR2 and won't suffer from horrendous memory latency.


It only shows that one company can expect to get massive complaints from its customers soon about its crappy software. An H.264 encoder can easily use two dozen cores if they are there (apart from the fact that it might be limited by the speed of the DVD drive if you encode straight from DVD); there is no reason at all why this software shouldn't be twice as fast on a Quad core and four times as fast on an eight core machine.

milo
Aug 18, 2006, 03:33 PM
So what apps will saturate all four cores or at least get close to it, on either a quad G5 or quad xeon? Are there any?

Are there any apps that really take advantage of four cores on their own?

bigbossbmb
Aug 18, 2006, 04:21 PM
i know that the latest version of maya takes advantage of more than two cores on its own. i would hope that compressor does, but i'm not sure.

paulvee
Aug 18, 2006, 06:45 PM
My 3.0's shipping date just changed - for no obvious reason - from 8/20 to 9/19. One month. Clearly, something just got snagged in the supply chain.

Anyone else have this?

Multimedia
Aug 18, 2006, 06:50 PM
So what apps will saturate all four cores or at least get close to it, on either a quad G5 or quad xeon? Are there any?

Are there any apps that really take advantage of four cores on their own?Toast 7.1 UB can use more than two cores. In my test at the Apple stopre last Saturday I saw Toast 7.1 UB use more than 3 - between 2.3 and 3.1 cores all the time on the Mac Pro. It also uses more than two on the Quad G5 - just barely. Handbrake is not yet optimized for Mac Pro and uses a little less than two on both. That use of two is negatively impacted as soon as you start doiong something else especially both Toast and Handbrake at once.

But in future it will use all four. The problem with that "test" you so highly value, is that the testers didn't have a Quad to compare to, so they didn't even search out applications that are already "Quad Core Ready" - that would make a nice bullet on a software package wouldn't it?

Better yet: "MultiCore Ready".

If you don't think you are going to ever use more than one thing at a time, then you are right. But I think most of us here have 10-15 things open at once and do all sorts of things at once. That's the reason for "Spaces" in Loepard.

paulvee
Aug 18, 2006, 07:38 PM
My 3.0's shipping date just changed - for no obvious reason - from 8/20 to 9/19. One month. Clearly, something just got snagged in the supply chain.

Anyone else have this?


okay, it seems to be a RAM bottleneck. I had ordered a couple of 2 gig chips from apple cause I didn't mind paying the penalty now in order not to have to sell 1 gig'ers later on.

anyway, I'm on the phone now, getting standard RAM configuration, then I'm just going to to with OtherWorld's RAM.

I wish Apple had gotten their RAM supplies in order before they started shipping. Well, what can you do.

amin
Aug 18, 2006, 07:39 PM
... If apple releases a 2.66GHz Conroe iMac/Mac/whathaveyou it will be able to crunch through FCP/Photoshop/etc faster than a Mac Pro because it can use regular DDR2 and won't suffer from horrendous memory latency.

Where is your evidence to back up this statement? You have presented limited evidence about FCP, and none regarding "PS/etc." So far there is no "Mac/whathaveyou." Do you think a Conroe iMac will beat a Mac Pro due to lower memory latency alone? Do you have real experience or data regarding how horrendous a problem this is? Extra dual-core processor aside, the Mac Pro has a higher speed FSB, higher memory bus bandwidth, higher RAM capacity, and ability to set up internal RAID amongst other advantages over a Conroe iMac.

chatin
Aug 18, 2006, 08:13 PM
okay, it seems to be a RAM bottleneck. I had ordered a couple of 2 gig chips from apple cause I didn't mind paying the penalty now in order not to have to sell 1 gig'ers later on.

anyway, I'm on the phone now, getting standard RAM configuration, then I'm just going to to with OtherWorld's RAM.

I wish Apple had gotten their RAM supplies in order before they started shipping. Well, what can you do.

I purchased Kingston PC2 5300 FB for my Mac Pro from New Egg. They seemed to have the best price and some Mac friendly reviews.

My Pro now starts 10.4.7 in less than 5 seconds!

Multimedia
Aug 18, 2006, 08:29 PM
I purchased Kingston PC2 5300 FB for my Mac Pro from New Egg. They seemed to have the best price and some Mac friendly reviews.

My Pro now starts 10.4.7 in less than 5 seconds!Great Caesar's Ghost! :eek: From OFF? :eek: With total 3GB RAM? You have a QT Movie you can post of that? :eek:

081440
Aug 18, 2006, 08:31 PM
My Pro now starts 10.4.7 in less than 5 seconds!



NO WAY!! that would be awesome

twoodcc
Aug 18, 2006, 08:32 PM
NO WAY!! that would be awesome

yeah...please share a video if you can

chatin
Aug 18, 2006, 08:42 PM
From the time the Apple logo is displayed. There is a pause before that starts, I'd say only 10 seconds or so.

epitaphic
Aug 18, 2006, 09:06 PM
Do you think a Conroe iMac will beat a Mac Pro due to lower memory latency alone? Do you have real experience or data regarding how horrendous a problem this is? Extra dual-core processor aside, the Mac Pro has a higher speed FSB, higher memory bus bandwidth, higher RAM capacity, and ability to set up internal RAID amongst other advantages over a Conroe iMac.
Obviously, inherently the iMac design is inferior to the Mac Pro/Powermac. But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.

Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
the Mac Pro (...) actually takes longer to access main memory than the Core Duo processor in the MacBook Pro. This is much worse than it sounds once you take into account the fact that the MacBook Pro features a 667MHz FSB compared to the 1333MHz FSB (per chip) used in the Mac Pro.
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.

And how does it fare in memory latency?
It's not Apple's fault, but FB-DIMMs absolutely kill memory latency; even running in quad channel mode, the FB-DIMM equipped Mac Pro takes 45% more time to access memory than our DDR2 equipped test bed at the same memory frequency.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))

I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.

Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))

epitaphic
Aug 18, 2006, 09:12 PM
If you don't think you are going to ever use more than one thing at a time, then you are right. But I think most of us here have 10-15 things open at once and do all sorts of things at once. That's the reason for "Spaces" in Loepard.
We all probably have 15+ apps running at any time, but its very rare to have more than two hammering the CPU (unless its "automated" like with handbrake/toast). That is of course, unless you find yourself editing video whilst designing a website whilst laying out a book whilst writing some music whilst watching superman at the same time. ;)

Multimedia
Aug 18, 2006, 09:13 PM
From the time the Apple logo is displayed. There is a pause before that starts, I'd say only 10 seconds or so.So You are saying 10 seconds from OFF to the Grey Apple then 5 more seconds to the desktop? With 3 GB of New Egg + 2GB RAM? That's still very fast. Quad G5 is almost as fast as that though.

Multimedia
Aug 18, 2006, 09:19 PM
I purchased Kingston PC2 5300 FB for my Mac Pro from New Egg. They seemed to have the best price and some Mac friendly reviews.

My Pro now starts 10.4.7 in less than 5 seconds!Link To New Egg Mac Pro Kingston Memory? I can't find it. How much money?

Ramseeker.com (http://Ramseeker.com) has a full Mac Pro line up of choices now. Omni OPTIVAL is only $333.99 per 2GB kit including cool blue heatsinks IF YOU USE THIS LINK (http://www.ramseeker.com/scripts/counter.php?http://www.omnitechnologies.biz/cgi-bin/catalog/cp-app.cgi?usr=51F714335&rnd=3227630&rrc=N&affl=B&cip=&act=&aff=&pg=prod&ref=APLMP2X1GB667O&cat=applem).

chatin
Aug 18, 2006, 09:55 PM
Here is the link to the fast memory.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?DEPA=0&type=&Description=5300+fb+dimm&Submit=ENE&Ntk=all&N=0&minPrice=&maxPrice=&Go.x=0&Go.y=0

The desktop literally explodes onto the screen! The clock timer gets only one quarter the way around one rotation. I'll see if I can shoot a quicktime movie for future Quad G5 switchers.

:) :p

shawnce
Aug 18, 2006, 10:14 PM
So You are saying 10 seconds from OFF to the Grey Apple then 5 more seconds to the desktop? With 3 GB of New Egg + 2GB RAM? That's still very fast. Quad G5 is almost as fast as that though.

A little random trivia I learned at WWDC 06...

- When you see the Apple symbol on an Intel Mac that means EFI boot loader is active.
- When you see the spinning progress indicator that means the kernel has taken over from EFI boot loader.
- When you see the the switch to blue with progress dialog then the logininwindow is active (launchd has been loading required boot time services by this point).

If you hold down option while booting and get into the traditional boot disk selection screen on a Intel based Mac you can add and remove storage devices and they will appear/disappear automatically (EFI allows for much faster scanning and dynamic add/remove of devices). Additionally they will use the volume icon if one is found and for fun you can use your IR remote to make your boot selection.

amin
Aug 18, 2006, 10:28 PM
Obviously, inherently the iMac design is inferior to the Mac Pro/Powermac.

It may be obvious, but based on your earlier statement that a Conroe iMac would be "able to crunch through" apps faster than a Mac Pro, the obvious seemed worth identifying.

But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.

So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta

Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
*snip*
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.

And how does it fare in memory latency?
*snip*

Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.

As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))

I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.

I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).

Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))

I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.

Multimedia
Aug 18, 2006, 10:36 PM
Here is the link to the fast memory.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?DEPA=0&type=&Description=5300+fb+dimm&Submit=ENE&Ntk=all&N=0&minPrice=&maxPrice=&Go.x=0&Go.y=0

The desktop literally explodes onto the screen! The clock timer gets only one quarter the way around one rotation. I'll see if I can shoot a quicktime movie for future Quad G5 switchers.

:) :pWow! 2GB Sticks For Only $349 Each? That Sounds Like A New Low Price. Thanks for the video. I hope I can hold out for the Conroe-Merom roll outs before I pull the trigger.

Half Glass
Aug 18, 2006, 11:29 PM
"Quad Core Ready" - that would make a nice bullet on a software package wouldn't it?

Better yet: "MultiCore Ready".


So the webpages at Apple.com suggest the improvement of Xeon vs Quad G5 in FCP of 1.3- 1.4 times as fast as the Quad G5.

However, notice that it is footnoted that these results were obtained using a Beta version of FCP:

Testing conducted by Apple in July 2006 using preproduction Mac Pro units and shipping Power Mac G5 Quad units. Mac Pro testing conducted with a beta version of Final Cut Pro.


What does this mean for us: new version of FCP required for multiple core utilization?

I just took advanatage of the crossgrade, will it soon need an upgrade as well? I hope it is an update/download not as a version upgrade/purchase.

--HalfGlass

epitaphic
Aug 18, 2006, 11:46 PM
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.

Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.

Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.

I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.

I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.

One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.

Multimedia
Aug 18, 2006, 11:54 PM
So the webpages at Apple.com suggest the improvement of Xeon vs Quad G5 in FCP of 1.3- 1.4 times as fast as the Quad G5.

However, notice that it is footnoted that these results were obtained using a Beta version of FCP:
On The Mac Pro Performance Page (http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html) In the first section "Film and Video" footnote under the Bar Charts:
"Testing conducted by Apple in July 2006 using preproduction Mac Pro units and shipping Power Mac G5 Quad units. Mac Pro testing conducted with a beta version of Final Cut Pro."What does this mean for us: new version of FCP required for multiple core utilization?

I just took advanatage of the crossgrade, will it soon need an upgrade as well? I hope it is an update/download not as a version upgrade/purchase.I'm sure it will be a free download update not more money. But I'm not surprised. That's why I'm waiting until December 10 to mail in my Crossgrade form and DVD. I wanted to get all the updates until the offer expires December 20 on the install DVDs I get with my Crossgrade. Thanks for pointing out that detail. :)

I think it's safe to point out that when this MultiCore version of Final Cut Pro is released, that FCP performance will also improve on the Quad. The same will also likely be true when Leopard ships.

Silentwave
Aug 18, 2006, 11:54 PM
possible clovertown obstacles....

OK here are some possible DIY upgrade to clovertown obstacles

1) firmware- will it even boot?

2) FSB- 1066 for clovertown is slower than 1333 for woody

3) RAM- Clovertown uses 533 FB-DIMM instead of the 667 FBDIMM Woodcrest uses

4) power/heat- the Clovertown has a TDP in practical use about 20W higher than the hottest Woodcrest...multiply this by two because its dual processor, and you've got a good 40W beyond the design, maybe more.

5) size- will it fit the existing coolers?

monster620ie
Aug 19, 2006, 02:33 AM
I'm sure it will be a free download update not more money. But I'm not surprised. That's why I'm waiting until December 10 to mail in my Crossgrade form and DVD. I wanted to get all the updates until the offer expires December 20 on the install DVDs I get with my Crossgrade. Thanks for pointing out that detail. :)


Darn it ... I just received my crossgrade upgrade yesterday eventhough I only own powerbook and am waiting for merom based laptop. While on the topic of fcp, can I install on my powerbook for now and in install on later on my future intel-laptop? (reading the legal eula it seems install is only allowed for one laptop and desktop... I guess I will have to uninstall first on powerbook .....) I am just not sure if apple will block my serial number or something ...

JFreak
Aug 19, 2006, 03:11 AM
this kinds of benchmarks show clearly that the world is not yet ready for Universally Better appplications. Quad G5 still rocks as a production system, but it would surely be nice to give those new Mac Pro's a test drive; however, it would be rather lame, as not nearly all audio plugins have been converted. For myself -- for that very reason -- the Intel-era begins in 2008 at the earliest. I want zero crashes when I mix.

50548
Aug 19, 2006, 07:08 AM
I wonder if there is still any Winblows fanboy out there willing to justify the purchase of a PC...horrible OS, slower machine, more expensive...no damn way. The Quad MacPro is THE most powerful desktop in this world...period.

Multimedia
Aug 19, 2006, 07:18 AM
Darn it ... I just received my crossgrade upgrade yesterday eventhough I only own powerbook and am waiting for merom based laptop. While on the topic of fcp, can I install on my powerbook for now and in install on later on my future intel-laptop? (reading the legal eula it seems install is only allowed for one laptop and desktop... I guess I will have to uninstall first on powerbook .....) I am just not sure if apple will block my serial number or something ...No they won't block your serial number. It's the honor system. Yes you can put it on what you have now and what you get later.

janstett
Aug 19, 2006, 07:48 AM
I have a question about dual monitor support on the Mac Pro...

Right now my main desktop is a 3.6 GHz Pentium D Xtreme (codename Smithfield, 2 cores w/ Hyperthreading, looks like 4 cores) running XP Media Center. A very capable machine, but I'm on the verge of getting a 3 GHz Mac Pro (stripped so I can mitigate the financial damage). I want the ATI Radeon display card.

I have two displays, the 2nd of which is rotated 90 degrees (portrait mode) so it's the perfect size for editing documents or reading long articles. Can I rotate the 2nd display 90 degrees like I can in Windows?

epitaphic
Aug 19, 2006, 09:06 AM
Can I rotate the 2nd display 90 degrees like I can in Windows?
Short answer: Yes

Long answer: Yes you can

;)

amin
Aug 19, 2006, 09:42 AM
You make good points. I guess we'll learn more as more information becomes available.

Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.

Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.


I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.


Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.


You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.

One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.

Multimedia
Aug 19, 2006, 12:33 PM
And I'm not convinced this is only an application problem. When I run Handbrake on the Quad G5 alone it uses just over two cores 203% @ about 100fps analysis (1st Pass of 2) speed. If I add a Toast encode while that is happening, Handbrake takes a huge hit down to below 150% @ 70-80 fps analysis while Toast can only use about 130% instead of more alone. So the Tiger OS X seems to have difficulty managing more than one multicore application's core usage allocation up to its maximum capability - IE Tiger is not so MultiCore Enabeled as it could be IE Leopard probably will be much moreso - let's hope that is one of its TOP SECRETS.

When I ran tests on the Mac Pro at the Apple Store last Saturday between Toast and/or Handbrake, their use of more cores alone and together was much better. Handbrake alone can analyze up to around 134fps while writing at about 107 fps using about 1.5-1.75 cores. So while not yet fully optimized for Mac Pro yet, it's already outperforming the Quad G5 significantly. Handbrake would appear to analyze files about 33% faster while writing them about 15% faster while using 1.5 to 1.75 cores. Quad G5 does analysis @ about 100fps and writes about 93 fps (2nd Pass) using up to about 2.2 cores.

Toast 7.1 UB uses Mac Pro cores much more than it does Quad cores - in the range of 280 - 310% IE about 3 cores compared to only about 1.5 cores on the Quad G5 as well as on the Dual Core G5. Unfortunately I didn't have encode times for each of the sample files I brought with me from the Quad so I don't know the real time how much faster that really amounts to. Running simultaneously on the Mac Pro, Toast would use over 2.5 cores while handbrake would use only one or less than one at best.

Together simultaneously on Mac Pro 2.66 it's
Toast/Handbrake
2.7 cores/1 core best
2.5 cores/.75 core worst

Handbrake during Toast is down to as few as 60fps but sometimes up to 100fps as well. Toast meanwhile is Still consuming up to almost 3 cores with Handbrake running at the same time. So Toast would appear to be much more optimized for the Mac Pro's MultiCores than it is for the Quad G5's Multicores. Same could be said for Handbrake - especially since it is not really fully Optimized for Mac Pro yet.

satzzz
Aug 19, 2006, 05:52 PM
There's allready en new beta of Adobe's Lightroom, Does that one run native under on the intel machines?

epitaphic
Aug 19, 2006, 05:53 PM
And I'm not convinced this is only an application problem. When I run Handbrake on the Quad G5 alone it uses just over two cores 203%
So what happened to:
Both Toast and Handbrake can use 4 cores EACH
Looking at the handbrake forums, speeds seem to vary drastically between users with the same machine. Definitely seems to be affected by whatever else you have running or configured in the OS or otherwise. I suppose the "cleanest" install to test is in the Apple store (I'm just assuming they do a clean ghost copy at shutdown or end of day?)

When I ran tests on the Mac Pro at the Apple Store last Saturday between Toast and/or Handbrake, their use of more cores alone and together was much better.
So your benchmarks show the Mac Pro using 15-33% less CPU than the G5? There's no doubt that Woodcrest is a superior chip architecture to the G5 (one would hope after 3 years) and so that's why you're seeing more FPS inspite of less CPU use. But why does it use less cores though? Seems like either its a software problem OR some hardware is being maxed (I/O or FSB perhaps?)

So would it be correct to say that the only app that is even remotely "Quadcore aware" is Toast? It seems like by the time professional apps are made to take advantage of 4 cores we'll probably be on more than 8! :eek:

If only they could build something in the CPU itself that delegates tasks to n cores, we'd all be sorted. :)

epitaphic
Aug 19, 2006, 05:57 PM
There's allready en new beta of Adobe's Lightroom, Does that one run native under on the intel machines?
From Adobe's site:

Will Lightroom run on Intel-based Macintoshes?

Yes. The Macintosh version of Adobe Lightroom beta 3 is a Universal application that will run natively both on PowerPC systems and on the new Intel-based Macintoshes.

MrCrowbar
Aug 19, 2006, 06:08 PM
!!!! DON'T DO THE SMC FIRMWARE UPDATE !!!!

Sorry to post it here, but I think it's urgent.
This update "fixes" tha Macbook fans. After the update, they (the fans) basically run at full speed all the time. They only stop once your CPU is below 50°C.

macgeek2005
Aug 19, 2006, 06:08 PM
I'm sure you know this. But just a reminder that you would be dealing with an extremely fragile and tricky upgrade process that could destroy your motherboard or fry the processor without the latest cooling system from Apple. Just my own caution against attempting this. Not worth the risk I think. There will be a better video card with the Dual Clovertown Mac Pro as well as other changes to the system fixing bugs discovered between now and then. Too many changes in the works for me to want to fool with such a complex system.

You make me mad you know that? All over the boards I see your posts with your weird avatar and your extremely critical opinions on everything. Why don't you wait until 2010 and get a 32 core system from intel. Why don't you wait until nobody uses computers anymore. This is just a phase in the history of the world. There will be something beyond computers in another few hundred years. Why buy a computer if it'll be obsolete at some point?

Professional users are out there using G5 towers and even G4's. They're using MacBook Pro's, which are much less powerfull than the Quad Mac Pro right now. I mean, what's your problem? Will there ever be a computer good enough for you?

There are people like you out there, but i've never met a case as extreme as you. I mean, you even went as far as to say that theres very little you can do with 4 cores. Where the **** did you pull that from? Actually, don't answer that question.

I think that you're secretly some evil worker from microsoft trying to stall people from buying Mac Pro's!

If everyone could all of a sudden comprehend exactly how powerful the current machines are, anyone who was thinking of buying one, would buy one.

But you're out here with your "Clovertown is better" and your "Bugs must be worked out" and your this and your that.

You know what? I have three Rev. A iMac Core Duo's in my house, and not a single one of them has had a bug, a crash, a freeze, or a problem of any sort. Rev. A.

HMMM. Maybe Apple does know how to do Rev. A. Just sometimes? Maybe? Perhaps?

Especially with their Quad Xeon 64 Bit Workstation which they've been working on for over a year?

Do you realise that in the procces of making these computers they work out the bugs themselves? They use the computers, and find all the bugs possible, and work them out?

What do you think all those apple workers have been doing for the last year and a half, if not working out bugs on their machines?

For anyone out there who has been needlessly influenced by this guy to wait for a system that will only be outdated by the one that will come after it, please uninfluence yourself, and buy the stupid computer that you want, when you want it.

Jeeshh!!

THX1139
Aug 19, 2006, 07:34 PM
... For anyone out there who has been needlessly influenced by this guy to wait for a system that will only be outdated by the one that will come after it, please uninfluence yourself, and buy the stupid computer that you want, when you want it.

Jeeshh!!

I agree. I'm noticing a trend. People who are looking at the Macpro in a negative way come in three flavors. The first type are invested in G5 (especially quad) and are desperately trying justify that their investment is sound, when they actually desire a Macpro. They can feel better about their old machines by making the new ones seem bad. The are almost "smug" about waiting until a better one comes out. The second flavor are people who hate the Mac culture and are pissed that the Mac is catching up to the windows workstation sector. The third type are people who can't afford a Macpro and go out of their way to publicly discredit the machine so that they can feel good about their iMacs or Minis. There are others, but you get the point.

I also find it amusing when I see posters participating in Macpro discussions when they have publicly stated that they have no intention of buying a Macpro. WTF?? Don't they have a life outside of macrumors? If I owned a G5 Quad and had no intention of buying a Macpro, I'd be spending all of my spare time doing cool stuff with my machine... instead of wasting that time participating in discussions that have nothing to do with me. I might read though some of the threads now and then, just to keep up with technology - but to particpate and debate, what a waste. I guess some folks have no life.

bigbossbmb
Aug 19, 2006, 08:19 PM
That's why I'm waiting until December 10 to mail in my Crossgrade form and DVD. I wanted to get all the updates until the offer expires December 20 on the install DVDs I get with my Crossgrade. Thanks for pointing out that detail. :)

I really doubt that they are going to put the new updates onto the crossgrade discs. I just got mine and it didn't include the 5.1.1 update...maybe a 5.2 update would be different. But I don't think it is really a reason to wait.

Multimedia
Aug 19, 2006, 08:51 PM
I also find it amusing when I see posters participating in Macpro discussions when they have publicly stated that they have no intention of buying a Macpro. WTF?? Don't they have a life outside of macrumors? If I owned a G5 Quad and had no intention of buying a Macpro, I'd be spending all of my spare time doing cool stuff with my machine... instead of wasting that time participating in discussions that have nothing to do with me. I might read though some of the threads now and then, just to keep up with technology - but to particpate and debate, what a waste. I guess some folks have no life.While it is true I have no life, it is not true I have fully decided to skip buying a Mac Pro. These discussions have lead me to a place of indecision about it rather than what I previously thought, which was to skip it. I never intended to talk anyone out of buying one if they want one. And I never intended to talk bad dirt against it. My apologies to anyone who thought I did. :(

My hearty congratulations to all who have taken the Mac Pro plunge already.

I am also waiting to see what the full scope of Core 2 offerings will be as I want a 17" Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro more first.

As far as the comment that Toast and Handbrake can use all four cores goes, Toast definitely does in the Mac Pro and if you add a significant action to the Quad G5, it will negatively impact the 2-3 core performance of Handbrake as well as Toast. That is what I meant. If it wasn't clear before now, I apologize for the imcomplete explanation of my meaning.

I feel misunderstood by some of you. No harm intended. Not anti-Mac Pro at all. Not trying to ratinoalize Quad G5 as somehow better - no way. Not trying to negatively impact Mac Pro sales. I'm totally Pro Mac Pro. Regret the misunderstanding. Wish I hadn't hurt some people's feelings. :o

macgeek2005
Aug 19, 2006, 09:43 PM
While it is true I have no life, it is not true I have fully decided to skip buying a Mac Pro. These discussions have lead me to a place of indecision about it rather than what I previously thought, which was to skip it. I never intended to talk anyone out of buying one if they want one. And I never intended to talk bad dirt against it. My apologies to anyone who thought I did. :(

My heartly congratulations to all who have taken the Mac Pro plunge already.

I am also waiting to see what the full scope of Core 2 offerings will be as I want a 17" Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro more first.

As far as the comment that Toast and Handbrake can use all four cores goes, Toast definitely does in the Mac Pro and if you add a significant action to the Quad G5, it will negatively impact the 2-3 core performance of Handbrake as well as Toast. That is what I meant. If it wasn't clear before now, I apologize for the imcomplete explanation of my meaning.

I feel misunderstood by some of you. No harm intended. Not anti-Mac Pro at all. Not trying to ratinoalize Quad G5 as somehow better - no way. Not trying to negatively impact Mac Pro sales. I'm totally Pro Mac Pro. Regret the misunderstanding. Wish I hadn't hurt some people's feelings. :o

That's okay. No worries. I just get a little defensive when I spend $5000 on a new system, and then see you posting about how it'll be better with Clovertown. But that's my problem I guess. :rolleyes:

Anyway, it's all cool.

jamesW135
Aug 19, 2006, 10:16 PM
Whoa! I'm amazed at how it compared to the G5 in the Photoshop Speed test. If it was this fast now. Imagine PS once it's a UB!!:eek:

THX1139
Aug 20, 2006, 12:11 AM
That's okay. No worries. I just get a little defensive when I spend $5000 on a new system, and then see you posting about how it'll be better with Clovertown. But that's my problem I guess. :rolleyes:

Anyway, it's all cool.

Yeah... me too! LOL!! :D

As for Toast and Handbrake performance... well that's all well and cool, but I have little use for those apps on such extreme level. I can't think of an instance where I would run Toast more than once or twice a week. Maybe I should get netflix and build a library of illegal movies?? Nah... I will be using my Macpro for creative work instead. FCP, Motion, Shake, Lightwave, Maya etc... I realize that comparisions with Handbrake and Toast are being made just to show how the cores are utilized, but frankly, I don't give a damn about those apps. They show me nothing. Now if you get into comparing heavy duty Professional apps that take full advantage of all cores at native speeds, then I'm excited. For example, Newtek Lightwave has been announced as UB "very soon". Lightwave is a fully multicore application that should test the strength of the Macpro when it comes to rendering. I'd love to see those benchmarks compared to G5!

Newtek Press Release (http://www.newtek.com/news/releases/08-01-06f.html)

Silentwave
Aug 20, 2006, 12:54 AM
That's okay. No worries. I just get a little defensive when I spend $5000 on a new system, and then see you posting about how it'll be better with Clovertown. But that's my problem I guess. :rolleyes:

Anyway, it's all cool.


but it might not! First the programs have to be made to use all 8 cores, then you have to combat the slower FSB and RAM (533 FBD instead of 667)

Tigerton is a totally different story of course ;) :D

slackpacker
Aug 20, 2006, 12:58 AM
Anyone ever check and see if Quicktime was Universal

wmmk
Aug 20, 2006, 01:04 AM
Anyone ever check and see if Quicktime was Universal
if i'm not mistaken, it's been universal since osx for intel was released.

Multimedia
Aug 20, 2006, 01:08 AM
That's okay. No worries. I just get a little defensive when I spend $5000 on a new system, and then see you posting about how it'll be better with Clovertown. But that's my problem I guess. :rolleyes:

Anyway, it's all cool.Thank you. I didn't mean to make you feel bad. This Clovertown thing is not new news. Some of us have known it would follow the first Mac Pro fairly soon thereafter since last Winter and have been discussing it ever since then. So I didn't think bringing it up here would upset new buyers. It's definitely going to cost a lot more if that helps.Yeah... me too! LOL!! :D

As for Toast and Handbrake performance... well that's all well and cool, but I have little use for those apps on such extreme level. I can't think of an instance where I would run Toast more than once or twice a week. Maybe I should get netflix and build a library of illegal movies?? Nah... I will be using my Macpro for creative work instead. FCP, Motion, Shake, Lightwave, Maya etc... I realize that comparisions with Handbrake and Toast are being made just to show how the cores are utilized, but frankly, I don't give a damn about those apps. They show me nothing. Now if you get into comparing heavy duty Professional apps that take full advantage of all cores at native speeds, then I'm excited. For example, Newtek Lightwave has been announced as UB "very soon". Lightwave is a fully multicore application that should test the strength of the Macpro when it comes to rendering. I'd love to see those benchmarks compared to G5!

Newtek Press Release (http://www.newtek.com/news/releases/08-01-06f.html)Thanks. I know what you mean. :)

Just a brief clarification on how I use Toast. Has nothing to do with burning DVDs. I use it to encode DVD Images of Digital Broadcast Television Shows recorded with EyeTV2 from off air SD and HD transmissions for personal archival purposes. Images not DVDs. Why? Because I beleive Handbrake is the most superior mp4 encoder available and it needs DVDs or DVD Images to rip from. Toast has what I think is among the best DVD Image transcoders. So I crank up the Toast settings to Maximum Quality and transcode the Native Digital Off Air Broadcast Recordings with Toast to DVD Images that Handbrake can then use to make pristine mp4 files that are a fraction the size of the originals. Once ripped to mp4s, the originals can be deleted as well as the Toast Images. What was originally a 4.4 GB recording winds up a 351 MB mp4 file - not H.264 btw for other reasons. 12 of those mp4 files fit on the same DVD that even one of the original recordings won't even fit on. And they look very similar to the originals. A little soft, but very fine from a fraction of the starting size. And from an iPod on an analog TV they look as good as commercial DVDs.

The same technique can be used to make pristine iPod compatible web-size versions of any of your FCP creations. So it may be relevant to you when you look at that post post-production application. :)

Anyway I'm glad you guys aren't too angry with me cause this time forward is really going to be a power explosion on all personal computers and we all know here that OS X is the only way to fly with the new hardware. Once we get Leopard on board and the remainder of all the pro aplications go UB and MultiCore Optimized, 2007 forward are going to be amazing times for creativity with little to no waiting for any processes to get done. :) Whoopie!

THX1139
Aug 20, 2006, 03:45 AM
Anyway I'm glad you guys aren't too angry with me cause this time forward is really going to be a power explosion on all personal computers and we all know here that OS X is the only way to fly with the new hardware. Once we get Leopard on board and the remainder of all the pro aplications go UB and MultiCore Optimized, 2007 forward are going to be amazing times for creativity with little to no waiting for any processes to get done. :) Whoopie!

Yeah, now all we have to do is be able to afford it. Wonder what the price point on tigerton or clovertown is going to be. Probably way more coin than I have! How is it going to be possible for Apple or any other vendor to utilize those mega multi-core processers and keep the systems affordable for the common man? They are going to need a middle ground machine more than ever! Not every professional is going to need more than 4 cores let alone be willing to pay for it. I think the more processors, the more specialized the computer is going to become.

50548
Aug 20, 2006, 05:34 AM
The only conclusion following the advent of the duo MacPro x Leopard is this: Microsoft Windows is dead.

epitaphic
Aug 20, 2006, 08:07 AM
Not every professional is going to need more than 4 cores let alone be willing to pay for it. I think the more processors, the more specialized the computer is going to become.
This is precisely the transition we've been seeing for some time, becoming more and more apparent every 6 months. Computers are no longer general purpose machines. It's already happened to consumers: machines today are way more than what's needed for web and email. For prosumers, its just about right, for gamers, you can never have enough single core + GPU power.

I think its fair to say to that the Mac Pro is in a way too specialized already. If you look at it's server RAM for example, which group of professionals benefits from its strengths? How many professionals will actually be able to get close to using all four cores during their normal workflow?

The way i see it, there are about 8 mainstream lines of professionals:

- 3D Artists
- Coders
- Graphic Designers
- IT
- Multimedia Artists
- Musicians
- Photographers
- Video Editors

Who can fully utilize 4 cores right now? I'd say possibly 3D Artists, Musicians(quad G5 only), and IT.

Sure everyone else will probably get a 15% kick in performance in some apps but for the most part, 4 core Mac Pro is not going to make your apps run any faster (it does give the machine more headroom for ample multitasking though). Of course at the moment there is only a 4 core Mac Pro so it's a bit academic to discuss the fact that a 2 core Mac Pro would be just as productive and much more cost effective. However, as most of you probably already know, there are good chances of an 8 core Mac Pro in January.

Sidenote: This sort of update (new machine in August, new machine following January) is not new. It happened in 2002-2003 resulting in the top of the line machine introduced in August to drop 40% in price in January.

So the interesting thing to speculate now is, if most of us have a hard time utilizing a quad to its full potential, what would an 8 core do for you? I know its not cost effective for apple at the moment, but in the future I suspect we'll be seeing 4-8 lines of professional macs.

Cheese
Aug 20, 2006, 12:51 PM
Freescale? Where does Freescale have a 64 -bit spot on their road map? (I want to know) Could this be.. really? Freescale? Now there's a twist I for one, did not see

50548
Aug 20, 2006, 02:02 PM
Freescale? Where does Freescale have a 64 -bit spot on their road map? (I want to know) Could this be.. really? Freescale? Now there's a twist I for one, did not see

Are they still around? I thought their business was all about embedded procs for cars and radios... :rolleyes:

chatin
Aug 20, 2006, 02:21 PM
Mac Pros will need 64bit Leopard to achieve their full multi-core potential. Expect all Core 2 based Macs to hold value well through the next release cycle of OSX Leopard.

Apple is still selling G5's on the website for $3299! Until
Adobe gets out - and optimizes - universal binaries, Quad G5 will sell for more than Quad Xeon Mac Pros!



:rolleyes:

mashinhead
Aug 20, 2006, 06:25 PM
Yeah, now all we have to do is be able to afford it. Wonder what the price point on tigerton or clovertown is going to be.

Yeah thats what i want to know. Because right now i have a dual-core powermac. I'm interested in this mac pro now, if i have huge upgradability options in the future, and also depending on price. I can wait til january, but if all that will happen by then is that there will be a 1K bto clovertown/kentsfield bto, I probably couldn't afford that anyway, and don't want to wait, but if they are going to upgrade everything, to the octo-core chip and prices are around the same, even if they increase, i would wait.

Multimedia
Aug 21, 2006, 01:25 AM
Mac Pros will need 64bit Leopard to achieve their full multi-core potential. Expect all Core 2 based Macs to hold value well through the next release cycle of OSX Leopard.

Apple is still selling G5's on the website for $3299! Until
Adobe gets out - and optimizes - universal binaries, Quad G5 will sell for more than Quad Xeon Mac Pros! :rolleyes:Quad G5 is only $2799 on the SAVE refurb page. Refurbs are the same as new with a new warranty. But I think that would be a poor choice compared to a Mac Pro. The Mac Pro is not cheaper because you have to add more expensive RAM. But it is faster overall and Rosetta Photoshop performance isn't bad. Quad G5 will also benefit from Leopard don't forget. It's not like Leopard is going to not be written to take advantage of the 64-bit G5 as well.

But I would not recomend a G5 Quad to anyone at this point. I'm pondering a Mac Pro purchase myself. But I'm going to try and hold out for a refurb or even see if I can wait for Clovertown. But I'm likely to be one of the first to snag a Mac Pro refurb when they hit the SAVE page in November-December. By then I may even be thinking about waiting for the January 9th SteveNote. Quad G5 is no slouch. But Mac Pro is faster overall.And I thought you were married to your quad last week ......While I may be married to my Quad G5, we're not exclusive and she likes a threesome with the younger faster models as much as I do too. :p

Liske
Aug 21, 2006, 01:28 AM
Quad G5 is only $2799 on the SAVE refurb page. Refurbs are the same as new with a new warranty. But I think that would be a poor choice compared to a Mac Pro. The Mac Pro is not cheaper because you have to add more expensive RAM. But it is faster overall and Rosetta Photoshop performance isn't bad. Quad G5 will also benefit from Leopard don't forget. It's not like Leopard is going to not be written to take advantage of the 64-bit G5 as well.

But I would not recomend a G5 Quad to anyone at this point. I'm pondering a Mac Pro purchase myself. But I'm going to try and hold out for a refurb or even see if I can wait for Clovertown. But I'm likely to be one of the first to snag a Mac Pro refurb when they hit the SAVE page in November-December. By then I may even be thinking about waiting for the January 9th SteveNote. Quad G5 is no slouch. But Mac Pro is faster overall.

What I most would like to know is how does the 2GHz Mac Pro stack up to the Quad G5.

And I thought you were married to your quad last week ......

THX1139
Aug 21, 2006, 02:09 AM
I stopped by the Apple store tonight to play with a Macpro. I'm getting ready to buy and thought I'd get some hands on experience to see how it performed with Finalcut Pro. I was especially interested in how it handles playback of uncompressed footage.

The store had a 2.6 hooked up to a 30"ACD. Everything on the machine was stock. I launched FCP and it appeared with a project already loaded (about 5 seconds). The project was a simple 20-30 second 720x480 NTSC clip of hockey game footage. I selected the clip and copied it to a new layer and threw a blend mode on it AND changed the speed to 85%. Next I copied and made another layer and changed the speed and offset it and changed the transparency to 80%. 3 layers total with the top two manipulated. I hit the render and it finished in about 30 seconds. :)

I know, not very scientific, but I just wanted to get a feel for how fast the Macpro would render manipulated footage. Anyhow, next I changed the output in project settings to "uncompressed" and hit render again. Again, it took less than a minute to render and the CPU usage in console was maxing out at only 42% per core.

Once the render completed, I hit the play button to see how the stock Macpro would handle playback of the uncompressed footage. It played for about 4 seconds then threw an error saying that frames were being dropped during playback. Not good. I was hoping that the Macpro would be able to play uncompressed footage from the timeline without 3rd party acceleration or setting up a raid. The error message suggested turning off RT effects (of which I did, but still had dropped frames) or get a faster drive. There was a couple other things the error suggested, but I can't remember at the moment. I wonder if having the ATI card would have made a difference? Not sure if FCP uses the GPU for playback, but I would think that should make a difference. Ram would probably help too. Anyone know what might be going on? Am I expecting too much out of this machine?

Sorry for sort of getting off topic. I thought this might be an appropriate area to post this; I wasn't feeling up to starting a new thread.

Multimedia
Aug 21, 2006, 05:43 AM
I stopped by the Apple store tonight to play with a Macpro. I'm getting ready to buy and thought I'd get some hands on experience to see how it performed with Finalcut Pro. I was especially interested in how it handles playback of uncompressed footage.

The store had a 2.6 hooked up to a 30"ACD. Everything on the machine was stock. I launched FCP and it appeared with a project already loaded (about 5 seconds). The project was a simple 20-30 second 720x480 NTSC clip of hockey game footage. I selected the clip and copied it to a new layer and threw a blend mode on it AND changed the speed to 85%. Next I copied and made another layer and changed the speed and offset it and changed the transparency to 80%. 3 layers total with the top two manipulated. I hit the render and it finished in about 30 seconds. :)

I know, not very scientific, but I just wanted to get a feel for how fast the Macpro would render manipulated footage. Anyhow, next I changed the output in project settings to "uncompressed" and hit render again. Again, it took less than a minute to render and the CPU usage in console was maxing out at only 42% per core.

Once the render completed, I hit the play button to see how the stock Macpro would handle playback of the uncompressed footage. It played for about 4 seconds then threw an error saying that frames were being dropped during playback. Not good. I was hoping that the Macpro would be able to play uncompressed footage from the timeline without 3rd party acceleration or setting up a raid. The error message suggested turning off RT effects (of which I did, but still had dropped frames) or get a faster drive. There was a couple other things the error suggested, but I can't remember at the moment. I wonder if having the ATI card would have made a difference? Not sure if FCP uses the GPU for playback, but I would think that should make a difference. Ram would probably help too. Anyone know what might be going on? Am I expecting too much out of this machine?

Sorry for sort of getting off topic. I thought this might be an appropriate area to post this; I wasn't feeling up to starting a new thread.That's great info. Would you please tell us:

1. How fast that is compared to what Mac model-speed you are currently using?

2. IE Were you impressed or not so impressed with how fast-slow it rendered?

3. What kind of speed were you expecting?

I'm no expert, but my guess is that the lack of RAM may have been the culprit. Need more independent tests like this from other FCP users. Thanks a lot. :)

Dunepilot
Aug 21, 2006, 09:51 AM
- 3D Artists
- Coders
- Graphic Designers
- IT
- Multimedia Artists
- Musicians
- Photographers
- Video Editors

Who can fully utilize 4 cores right now? I'd say possibly 3D Artists, Musicians(quad G5 only), and IT.

There's been controversy on Apple's forums over the last few days about the fact that Apple has optimised Logic for quad-core Intel but has never properly utilised the quad G5. Owners of quad G5s have been up in arms about this, as it is being suggested this is a deliberate crippling to avoid admitting that the quad G5 is potentially faster for musicians (reverbs etc have historically been heavily optimised for velocity engine). Apple has removed the threads on the topic, which either points to a smokescreen, or to the fact that they may have software engineers working on rectifying it.

Whatever the case, this is not the way to please your professional customers.

shawnce
Aug 21, 2006, 10:59 AM
Mac Pros will need 64bit Leopard to achieve their full multi-core potential.
You care to define "their full multi-core potential"?

THX1139
Aug 21, 2006, 12:40 PM
That's great info. Would you please tell us:

1. How fast that is compared to what Mac model-speed you are currently using?

2. IE Were you impressed or not so impressed with how fast-slow it rendered?

3. What kind of speed were you expecting?

I'm no expert, but my guess is that the lack of RAM may have been the culprit. Need more independent tests like this from other FCP users. Thanks a lot. :)

1. Since I'm currently using a G4 titanium powerbook, the Macpro screams in comparrison!! :eek: (Don't ask why I'm using such an old machine...it's a long story).

2. Yes, I was impressed with the render. It was the timeline playback of uncompressed footage that sucked.

3. I was happy with the render speed. I was expecting the rendered footage to play back without dropping frames.

You're correct to assume ram might help. Hard disk speed is another factor because the CPU has to read the data from disk. If the disk can't keep up, then FCP is forced to drop frames. I'm not sure if upgrading to ATI card is going to help or not, as I doubt that FCP utilizes the GPU to any extent.

I'm thinking that anyone who plans to use the Woodcrest to handle uncompressed footage (especially HD), is going to need a breakout box or a raid setup. The way is see it, stock Woodcrest isn't going to cut it for high end compositing. Although, most video editors don't work in uncompressed so that may not be a problem for them, and besides, they usually have a raid setup.

I'm anxious to get a Woodcrest so that I can test it with more ram. I'll definitely go with a raid or 10K drive for the occasional time I need to work with uncompressed footage.

epitaphic
Aug 21, 2006, 01:21 PM
Owners of quad G5s have been up in arms about this, as it is being suggested this is a deliberate crippling to avoid admitting that the quad G5 is potentially faster for musicians
I think the deal is that when the G5 Quad came out, there was nothing to compare it to. Sure it was going to be faster than a dual but no app to this day can fully utilize it. With the release of the Mac Pro, all of a sudden there is another quad for comparison. With apple's traditional "we moved to a new machine and we'll go through hell to show you how it's much faster than what you've got" they're having to optimize the code to show it. Now why would you go and optimize the code for the old machine? All it'll do is show that the new one isn't that much faster for that particular app.

You know how there's politics in everything? There's also marketing in everything :)

Multimedia
Aug 22, 2006, 08:19 AM
This ComputerWorld Review is far less restrained than the ArsTechnica moderate take:

Hands on: The new Mac Pro is 'one screamer' (http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9002545&pageNumber=4)

You could say they are gushing over it. Looks like a home run in the PC world. Gonna get a ton of switchers - even if they only ever run Windows XP on it. Next question will be "Oh you have a Mac Pro. What OS are you running on it?"

Answer: Whatever works for the job. :p

AidenShaw
Aug 22, 2006, 09:08 AM
Gonna get a ton of switchers - even if they only ever run Windows XP on it.
One big problem with running XP, though, is that you need the Boot Camp drivers from Apple.

If the MacIntel Pro were able to use any available device (any graphics, any PCIe card which has a Woodie driver, ...), then buying one to run Vista or Windows 2003 would make more sense.

As long as you're tied to proprietary drivers, though, it isn't nearly as attractive. There shouldn't be any Apple software needed to run Linux, Solaris or Windows, outside of a bog-standard BIOS implementation.

Hopefully, however, the Apple pricing will push down the prices on other Xeon workstations. It doesn't make a lot of sense for a comparable Dell to be $600 more than an Apple.

tortoise
Aug 22, 2006, 05:19 PM
The next Xeon is Clovertown, which is just Woodcrest scaled to 4 cores with a few changes in clock and FSB etc. Tigerton comes next, also 4 cores but MP capable (3+ chips possible) and with a possibility of increased FSB speed, bigger L2 cache and so on.

This will likely suck, because the interconnect Intel is using is just too damn slow. Putting four cores in the same package will just make the situation worse, because a lot of applications are significantly limited by memory performance.

The Woodcrest processors have been put through their paces pretty well on the supercomputing lists, and their Achille's heal is the memory subsystem. Current generation AMD Opterons still clearly outscale Woodcrest in real-world memory bandwidth with only two cores. Unless Intel pulls a rabbit out of their hat with their memory architecture issues when the quad core is released, AMDs quad core is going to embarrass them because of the memory bottleneck. And AMD is already starting to work on upgrading their already markedly superior memory architecture.

amin
Aug 22, 2006, 07:33 PM
Current generation AMD Opterons still clearly outscale Woodcrest in real-world memory bandwidth with only two cores.

Do you have a reference showing that this translates to better performance in real-world application tests in a head to head competition?

chatin
Aug 22, 2006, 09:08 PM
The Woodcrest processors have been put through their paces pretty well on the supercomputing lists, and their Achille's heal is the memory subsystem. Current generation AMD Opterons still clearly outscale Woodcrest in real-world memory bandwidth with only two cores. Unless Intel pulls a rabbit out of their hat with their memory architecture issues when the quad core is released, AMDs quad core is going to embarrass them because of the memory bottleneck. And AMD is already starting to work on upgrading their already markedly superior memory architecture.

This is one of the drawbacks of using a server CPU on the desktop. In lights-off Xserve this would not matter as most of the data is already cached in memory.

I think there might be lights out for future MacPro Xeons if AMD where to catch up in the race.

:rolleyes:

daneoni
Aug 22, 2006, 10:18 PM
Yeah im not surprised. I went to my local store today and saw one in all its glory attached to a 30" ACD. It was VERY fast, system prefs launched in micro seconds, a meaty FCP project opened in less than 5 seconds same for Aperture & Logic, 1080p HD trailers were chewed and spit out using less than 10% of processing power. Totally amazing and best part...its very quiet. I played with a Quad G5 once and it sounded like a jet engine taking off.

I defo want one but it'll cost me an arm and leg. Sigh...

Multimedia
Aug 23, 2006, 12:49 AM
Yeah im not surprised. I went to my local store today and saw one in all its glory attached to a 30" ACD. It was VERY fast, system prefs launched in micro seconds, a meaty FCP project opened in less than 5 seconds same for Aperture & Logic, 1080p HD trailers were chewed and spit out using less than 10% of processing power. Totally amazing and best part...its very quiet. I played with a Quad G5 once and it sounded like a jet engine taking off.

I defo want one but it'll cost me an arm and leg. Sigh...My Quad G5 is dead silent all the time. Those noisy Quads should have been sent off for repair. I was told the Quad in the Santa Clara Apple Store was also very loud. That is not normal. Properly serviced they run very silent.

AidenShaw
Aug 23, 2006, 08:15 AM
My Quad G5 is dead silent all the time. Those noisy Quads should have been sent off for repair. I was told the Quad in the Santa Clara Apple Store was also very loud. That is not normal. Properly serviced they run very silent.
dbA ? A system with 9 fans isn't going to be silent, period.

Are your systems in a room with a lot of ambient noise? (A wind-tunnel G4 sounds quiet at Best Buy, yet in my den I can clearly hear the fluid-bearing drive in my Yonah dual... ;) )

BJNY
Aug 23, 2006, 09:38 AM
My Quad G5 is silent as well, unlike Dual 2.7's which rev frequently.

I was concerned that the fans at the rear ports never spin, even during the Apple Hardware Test, but I've noticed that in other Quads as well. CPU temps are 50 to 60 degrees celcius.
Multimedia, would you confirm both with your Quad G5, please?

Multimedia
Aug 23, 2006, 10:38 AM
My Quad G5 is silent as well, unlike Dual 2.7's which rev frequently.

I was concerned that the fans at the rear ports never spin, even during the Apple Hardware Test, but I've noticed that in other Quads as well. CPU temps are 50 to 60 degrees celcius.
Multimedia, would you confirm both with your Quad G5, please?How do I do that? I never hear any fans from it. Analysis temperature Software links?

BJNY
Aug 23, 2006, 11:05 AM
If you're willing, you could start up from the Hardware Test disc, and run the test which makes the fans go non-stop except for the rearmost fans.

Temp widget http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/status/istatnano.html

andrewm
Aug 23, 2006, 11:07 AM
I did...:D

DIE POWER PC...DIE!!!

Most agreed. I'm using an iBook G4 right now, but I'd practically sell my kidneys (both of 'em!) to convert it to a MacBook Pro.

Let us continue to pray for a speedy death to the Macintosh PowerPC computer.

Cooknn
Aug 23, 2006, 12:51 PM
Let us continue to pray for a speedy death to the Macintosh PowerPC computer.I'd rather pray for the speedy development of Adobe Creative Suite 3 UB :cool:

tortoise
Aug 23, 2006, 03:04 PM
Do you have a reference showing that this translates to better performance in real-world application tests in a head to head competition?

Not handy, since a lot of this happened on mailing lists.

The short version is that the memory performance scales in a very sub-linear fashion as a function of the number of cores being used, whereas Opteron scalability is almost linear up to a large number of cores. The good news is that for single dual-core processors the memory performance is on par with dual-core Opterons and their in-cache performance can be better. The bad news is that this performance does not hold as you scale cores in a system. So for some applications (e.g. those that live mostly in cache) the Woodcrest processors will be mildly faster than Opterons, but for most the performance is about even in real app benchmarks.

I've seen fairly comprehensive benchmarks for both databases and scientific computing applications, both of which thoroughly exercise the memory subsystem. Even though a single Intel core theoretically has more bandwidth, the high latency means that the real bandwidth is about the same as the slower Opterons (which have real bandwidth that approaches theoretical) and the cross-sectional bandwidth of Opterons when you get up to 4 cores and higher is much higher since the scaling is almost linear with the number of cores. For Intel, I think it was the case that a bigger cache was a cheaper design choice than a truly scalable memory subsystem. As a result, they will have different competencies. Some types of floating point codes should run very well on Intel.

Glen Quagmire
Aug 23, 2006, 03:32 PM
This will likely suck, because the interconnect Intel is using is just too damn slow. Putting four cores in the same package will just make the situation worse, because a lot of applications are significantly limited by memory performance.

The Woodcrest processors have been put through their paces pretty well on the supercomputing lists, and their Achille's heal is the memory subsystem. Current generation AMD Opterons still clearly outscale Woodcrest in real-world memory bandwidth with only two cores. Unless Intel pulls a rabbit out of their hat with their memory architecture issues when the quad core is released, AMDs quad core is going to embarrass them because of the memory bottleneck. And AMD is already starting to work on upgrading their already markedly superior memory architecture.

In two years' time, Intel will release Nehalem its next micro-architecture - to replace Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest. It is supposed to ditch the FSB in favour of Intel's own interconnect, named CSI. Two years after Nehalem will come another micro-architecture.

In some respects, I'm quite happy to have ordered a Woodcrest Mac Pro, especially if the slow FSB does slow things down when Woodcrest's successor is released. If the Mac Pro can last me three or four years, I'll be in time for the post-Nehalem generation, which should be fairly spectacular.

Multimedia
Aug 23, 2006, 05:17 PM
If you're willing, you could start up from the Hardware Test disc, and run the test which makes the fans go non-stop except for the rearmost fans.

iStat nano widget (http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/status/istatnano.html)60° Celcius. Can't check Fans. Too much trouble.

BJNY
Aug 24, 2006, 10:57 AM
Appreciate it, Multimedia.
Thanks.

thunng8
Aug 31, 2006, 09:15 PM
Check it out!

http://barefeats.com/quad06.html


The 3 ghz Mac Pro is neck and neck with the G5 Quad in the Adobe benchmarks, sick considering the fact it's running under rosetta!!

It is worth noting that Barefeats has updated their comparison using much more typical photoshop operations:

http://www.barefeats.com/quad11.html

Which shows a much different picture, with the PowerPC models outperforming the MacPro by a significant margin.