PDA

View Full Version : BareFeats test summary: G5 vs G4


MacBytes
Jul 22, 2003, 12:02 PM
Category: Benchmarks
Link: Charts comparing Dual 2GHz G5 and Dual 1.4GHz G4's. Usual warnings apply (non-production machines, uncontrolled settings) (http://www.barefeats.com/g5sum.html)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

MrMacMan
Jul 22, 2003, 04:50 PM
Well most of the numbers are good, but the G4 still wins some of the time?

Whats with that?

Especially in Altevec.

Kamu-San
Jul 23, 2003, 02:27 AM
BareFeats compares test results between the 1.42 GHz G4 and the 2 GHz G5.
He doesn't have access to a G5, so he merely sums up other peoples test results. Still interesting though.

http://www.barefeats.com/g5sum.html


Look at the first tabel.
If you look at the CPU benchmark and devide the result by the clock speed, then you see that you get the following benchmark/Hz:
CPU:
G4: 0.12464
G5: 0.1225

So the G5 is actually less efficient per clock cycle.
But then again, the main problem with the G4 was the lack of clock speed and memory bandwidth.
So if we look at the memory benchmark per clock cycle, then we see the following:
G4: 0.1317
G5: 0.1595

So it looks like while the G5 is less efficient per clock cycle, it is much more powerful when it comes to memory access.
So the G5 really solves the 2 main drawbacks of the G4.

Abstract
Jul 23, 2003, 02:36 AM
*tear* *sniff*

That's beautiful.

Lets wait until software is 64-bit optimized and see where the real advantages are.

Emails and MS Word will be faster than a speeding bullet. :eek:

maradong
Jul 23, 2003, 02:56 AM
Originally posted by Abstract
*tear* *sniff*

That's beautiful.

Lets wait until software is 64-bit optimized and see where the real advantages are.
:eek:
M.O. as well ;-)
come on apple, bring us 64 bit optimized code.

Kamu-San
Jul 23, 2003, 03:24 AM
BTW, I was showing my TFT iMac to my brother last night. I told him that a 800MHz is not slow, but also not blazingly fast.
I showed him iPhoto and thought 'hot damn, this is going really slow'. I looked at my brother and I saw him thinking 'Jeez, that is a really crappy slow machine'. Then we started web browsing and it was also slow. I was puzzled by this, I know iPhoto can be a real pain, but Safari?

So I started Terminal and ran 'top'. Guess what? Camino was stuck in something and taking 70% CPU power :-(

After killing Camino suddenly everything went really fast. It was an amazing difference :-)


Anyway, he did some work editting a DV movie on the PC and he was really impressed by iMovie. Not only it's ease of use, but also the render speed for special effects. He works with Premiere on a 2.5GHz P4 and he thinks that my iMac renders transitions and special effects faster. He thinks that iMovie is a bit limited though (which it is), but really good for an app that you get with your OS.

Ehm, point is, I'm really curious about FCE running on that dual 2 GHz machine :-)))

ollywilson2003
Jul 23, 2003, 04:12 AM
Snifff, i want a G5....

anyone wanna got a spare $2999 US lying around?

Likvid
Jul 23, 2003, 06:36 AM
Abstract:

You don't buy a Mac to run Microsoft software, why have a Mac then?

I really don't understand people that got a Mac and that uses Microsoft software, there are alternatives like OpenOffice that works very good and even better in some cases.

Ambrose Chapel
Jul 23, 2003, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by Likvid
I really don't understand people that got a Mac and that uses Microsoft software, there are alternatives like OpenOffice that works very good and even better in some cases.

Didn't the Mac BU claim that Office X is more advanced than Office XP? If so I guess there are some advantages of running M$ software on a Mac (not that I do, of course). :D

MisterMe
Jul 23, 2003, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by Likvid
Abstract:

You don't buy a Mac to run Microsoft software, why have a Mac then?

I really don't understand people that got a Mac and that uses Microsoft software, there are alternatives like OpenOffice that works very good and even better in some cases. Some of us have jobs. When you get one, you might understand.

Kamu-San
Jul 23, 2003, 09:29 AM
Forget Office. If you want to do word processing and spreadsheets and **** then you're perfectly well off with an 800 MHz iMac, as long as you have enough memory.

It's memory intensive applications that the G5 will shine.

Flowbee
Jul 23, 2003, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by Likvid
I really don't understand people that got a Mac and that uses Microsoft software, there are alternatives like OpenOffice that works very good and even better in some cases.

I also have a Sony cd player, but I don't only play cd's released by Sony music on it. :rolleyes:

Some of us don't use Macs because of our hate for Microsoft. Office X is a solid product and and requires no guesswork as to whether it's compatible with the windows version. If you like Openoffice better, good for you.

Abstract
Jul 23, 2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by MisterMe
Originally posted by Likvid


You don't buy a Mac to run Microsoft software, why have a Mac then?

I really don't understand people that got a Mac and that uses Microsoft software, there are alternatives like OpenOffice that works very good and even better in some cases.
Some of us have jobs. When you get one, you might understand.

ZING!!!



I like MS Office ;)

idea_hamster
Jul 23, 2003, 10:51 AM
I don't use a Mac because I hate MicroSoft -- I use a Mac because I hate mediocrity.

I do have MS Office on my TiBook. And, generally, I don't use it.

I do most wordprocessing on Nisus Writer's beta version -- and they should really get their act together about releasing the full version of their new OS X version. But Nisus has always been a sleek, powerful program -- far superior to Word.

<ot>
If Apple is thinking of putting together an office suite based on Keynote, buying out Nisus to give it a full-blown supreme word processor would be a great step.
</ot>

BenRoethig
Jul 23, 2003, 12:06 PM
If Apple releases Apple Office/iOffice/whatever containing a good word processor/Filemaker express/Keynote that is compatible with Office XP documents by the time I return to classes, I'll buy it. Otherwise, Office is the best available option. Are their other options? I've used both Open Officer and Think Free Office and wasn't too impressed. Theres the AppleWorks/Keynote combo too, but that might not give me compatibility with the latest version of office for the PC. Yes, when you're in college that is rather important.

Okay, getting back to the orginal topic. I'm far from surprised. The G4 was always a fast chip. It suffered from severe memory limitations & due to Motorolla, never reached its full potential. It's possible that with a modern DDR FSB, the G4 might be faster than the G5.

daveL
Jul 23, 2003, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by BenRoethig
Okay, getting back to the orginal topic. I'm far from surprised. The G4 was always a fast chip. It suffered from severe memory limitations & due to Motorolla, never reached its full potential. It's possible that with a modern DDR FSB, the G4 might be faster than the G5.
Say what? G4 with a fast FSB >= G5 ? Give me a break! This is how bogus information gets started. The G4 can have 16 instructions in flight at any point in time. The G5 can have *216* instructions in flight. The G5 has twice the number of execution units of the G4. The G5 has a branch prediction unit that is significantly more advanced than the G4. These are just the highlights.

You are drawing conclusions based on benchmarks like Xbench that haven't even been compiled for the G5; they're running G4 code on the G5.

If you want a reasonable benchmark to compare the G4 to the G5 in terms of pure processor, check out the NASA tests posted on this forum. The tester also points out the impact of G5 optimized code on the test results.

In short, ill informed people shouldn't make statments like this; go do your homework.

Likvid
Jul 23, 2003, 01:13 PM
MisterMe:

Didn't know you worked at McDonalds.

/dev/null
------------------------------------------------------------
idea_hamster:

I like your attitude.:cool:

------------------------------------------------------------
OpenOffice or StarOffice is in most cases better than Office itself.

Believe me, i've used both in FreeBSD for a long time and you don't need MS Office.

I really don't understand people using Microsoft software with their Mac's when there are alternatives.

Hey, if you use Microsoft, why don't you buy a PC then instead?

Correct me if i'm wrong but i don't see the reason to use a Mac with Microsoft software....

Hell, buy a PC instead.
:rolleyes:

Likvid
Jul 23, 2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Flowbee
I also have a Sony cd player, but I don't only play cd's released by Sony music on it. :rolleyes:

Some of us don't use Macs because of our hate for Microsoft. Office X is a solid product and and requires no guesswork as to whether it's compatible with the windows version. If you like Openoffice better, good for you.

It's not about hate, it's about bad software code.

Excatly, you don't need a brain to use Office X, correct, does that make the product any better? NO...

Why do you use a Mac then? you only bought it because you like the design better than a PC or what?

I don't get the point here, don't make me think what i really think it is about, the design and not the hardware.
:(

Rower_CPU
Jul 23, 2003, 01:22 PM
Until the "alternatives" become standard issue for corporations, educational facilities and other venues with tech support issues, people will continue to use what they use at work - Microsoft Office.

Most people will not want to put out the effort to learn something new that they'll only use at home.

Let's not turn this into a Mac zealotry, MS bashing issue when it's not one.

chibianh
Jul 23, 2003, 01:31 PM
arstechnica.com has some pretty good articles about the ppc970. According to their latest article, the 970's VMX unit is more robust than they orginally thought. It's more robust than the original G4, but not as robust as the G4e. That's what I got out of it. For technical details, read:

http://arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/ppc970/ppc970-0.html

and

http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/03q2/ppc970-interview/ppc970-interview-1.html

Mr. MacPhisto
Jul 23, 2003, 02:01 PM
I doubt the G4 would beat the G5 in most speed tests when the G5 is properly optimized (running Panther and whatnot), even if the G4 gets a core update and faster FSB, etc.

However, the G4 could be a very nice consumer end chip. If the 7457 has a DDR bus instead of SDR, and utilizes a 200MHZ or faster FSB while increasing the L2 cache to 512K, then it should be nice on the consumer end. I think Moto may be able to make consumer level chips for the Mac - and if they move to .09 early next year, as is rumored, then Apple could have both the pro and consumer level chips manufactured using hte .09 process. I see the G4 getting worked on a bit - maybe by Apple/Moto/IBM putting their heads together, allowing them to make a much better consumer level chip. That is until late next year when the G5 should be superceded on the pro level and the 970 will become consumer end.

iPC
Jul 23, 2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Likvid
It's not about hate, it's about bad software code.

Excatly, you don't need a brain to use Office X, correct, does that make the product any better? NO...

Why do you use a Mac then? you only bought it because you like the design better than a PC or what?

I don't get the point here, don't make me think what i really think it is about, the design and not the hardware.
:(
It is called practicality. Use what works for yourself, and for others. Seems kind of silly to "fight the opressors" by using OOo (which I do use at home on linux) only to save and trade the files in MS Word format. Office v.X is a decent product. It needs a few things (db) of course... but it is 100% compatible with Office for Windows (in theory). OOo is not. Embed a image and a portion of a spreadsheet into a .doc file and save it using MS Office 2k (windows). Nows open the same file with OOo (Windows). Notice that the formatting is not the same, especially with the image file. Basically, your company letterhead with a nice logo, can not be viewed correctly by OOo. Silly stuff like this (Office 2k is not new...) is what keeps OOo from becoming feasibly usable. MS Office owns the market. 94% (or something close to it) market saturation is not good. It is very bad. It WILL NOT CHANGE until there is a common, open source (probably), file format for all types of documents. This would include the various MS Office pieces (writer, spreadsheet, db, presentations, etc) as well as pdf type thing. I highly doubt this will happen anytime soon. Maybe if we reach a Star Trek type situation (all computers the same, no different OS or hardware other than based on age -- version 1, 2, etc) it will happen. We live in a fractured society, and until that stops...

MisterMe
Jul 23, 2003, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by Likvid
....

I really don't understand people using Microsoft software with their Mac's when there are alternatives.There are more things under heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio.--William Shakespeare in Hamlet

You assume that because people use M$ products, they don't use alternatives. You assume wrong.
Originally posted by Likvid
Hey, if you use Microsoft, why don't you buy a PC then instead?Don't you think that Mac users know better how to spend their money than do you?
Originally posted by Likvid
Correct me if i'm wrong but i don't see the reason to use a Mac with Microsoft software....OK, you're wrong. None is so blind as he who will not see.

Makosuke
Jul 23, 2003, 04:26 PM
I'm not getting into this pointless Office argument, but I did want to comment on an earlier comment on 64-bit optimized code.

64-bit, for the most part doesn't matter. It's been said dozens of times by dozens of people but the average application has no need for the kind of memory allocation (>2 or 4GB) a 64-bit app can provide, and that's more or less all it's good for. Statisticians and hardcore math/3D people will probably be happy, though.

However... there's a lot more to the G5 than it's being 64-bit, and it does run differently than a G4. So there is a lot of optimization for the G5 that can be done, and that will, I expect, provide a significant advantage in per-Mhz speed, even putting memory bandwidth issues aside. Those optimizations have little or nothing to do with being 64 bit, though.

Anyway, the BareFeats results aren't wildly promising, but they're actually a bit more encouraging than they look; the processor benchmarks are more or less clock-for clock with the G4. What that really means is the G5 can run just as fast as a G4 per clock, even without any G5 optimization. Put proper G5 optimization in there, and then you're looking at benchmarks more like NASA's, which will be cool.

It's certainly a step up from the first gen P4s, when the deep pipelines made it slower in real world terms than "slower" P3s.

[I qualify my comments with the fact that I'm not a processor architecture expert and could be entirely wrong.]

h'biki
Jul 23, 2003, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by Likvid
It's not about hate, it's about bad software code.

Excatly, you don't need a brain to use Office X, correct, does that make the product any better? NO...

Why do you use a Mac then? you only bought it because you like the design better than a PC or what?

I don't get the point here, don't make me think what i really think it is about, the design and not the hardware.
:(

I ran OpenOffice under X11 for about three months then I gave in and ran Office vX and I don't regret the change.

Why?

OpenOffice is an impressive project. But under X11 its slow, clunky and feels like a bloody PC program. I ran OS X because I feel its a superior OS experience. OpenOffice doesn't have that - but Office vX does. Office vX is probably the best version of Office I've used since Word 5.

When OpenOffice releases their Aqua build in Q2 next year, then I'll reconsider, until then Office vX is good for me.

Capt Underpants
Jul 23, 2003, 08:04 PM
I can't believe the g4 won in any of the tests. This is unacceptable. Let's just hope that with "optimized" code, the G5 will kick the snot out of the G4 in every single way.

Flowbee
Jul 24, 2003, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by Capt Underpants
I can't believe the g4 won in any of the tests. This is unacceptable. Let's just hope that with "optimized" code, the G5 will kick the snot out of the G4 in every single way.

The G4 didn't "win" any tests. These benchmarks are compiled from various sources, not head-to-head tests of the two machines.

From BareFeats:
"Even though I haven't got my hands on a G5 yet, I'm starting to compile some test results that others have collected on the G5/2GHz MP to compare to the test results we have observed from the G4/1.42GHz MP in our lab..."

Let's not get too worked up until we have the production G5's to test against the G4's.

macphoria
Jul 24, 2003, 02:11 AM
Until real world comparison comes out, those numbers mean little, at least to me. When performances of specific apps (Photoshops and such) are compared in those machines by third party observer (Not Apple) then I'll be convinced of performance advantage or disadvantage between G4 and G5.

Kamu-San
Jul 24, 2003, 03:30 AM
Anyway, like I said, the main advantage of the G5 will lie in memory intensive applications, like video editting.

My brother thought that iMovie on a 800 MHz iMac was speedy compared to his 2.6 GHz PC, so you can imagine that FCP on a dual 2GHz G5 will fly.

Maybe Pixar will switch to G5s as well :D

h'biki
Jul 24, 2003, 04:47 AM
Originally posted by Capt Underpants
I can't believe the g4 won in any of the tests. This is unacceptable. Let's just hope that with "optimized" code, the G5 will kick the snot out of the G4 in every single way.

The G4 is a very fast, efficient chip - its just (unfortunately) limited by various other issues.

Oh, and BTW, going to 64bits isn't going to make you run twice as fast. It don't work like that.

Dont Hurt Me
Jul 24, 2003, 06:46 AM
The g4 is not a bad chip, it just moto has had problems getting them to higher clocks & current bus limitations. I would like to see a single 1.4 g4 vs 1.6 g5. Im sure the 1.6 would spank it but by how much? If anyone may be wondering i xbenched my 1.4 upgrade in my quicksilver and it has xbenched 113.76 .
:confused:

Kamu-San
Jul 24, 2003, 06:49 AM
For pure calculations the G5 would probably not be much faster than the G4.
But if you also need to process a lot of data, the G5 would be a lot faster.

Dont Hurt Me
Jul 24, 2003, 07:03 AM
anyways its good to see apple making progress, the g5's will only be getting faster as will the g4's. i would bet a 1.25 imac soon, and just read a great article on the emac 1 gig in mac addict. i would say g5, g4 at 1gig or better and you cant go wrong.

allpar
Jul 25, 2003, 10:23 AM
...but the one thing that drives me nuts about Office x (other than not importing Office 98 preferences, glossaries, dictionaries, etc.) is that all the keyboard equivalents have changed and are apparently NOT changeable, at least in Office. Office's slash-key-for-key-commands feature appears to have been dropped, as well. Does anyone know how to get these back?

ColdZero
Jul 26, 2003, 10:29 PM
ok first a quick comment:

People are easy to dismiss these scores as "not a real world test" and such. Yet the same kind of tests done v.s. a PC are taken as gold. I don't get it.

Anyway...

The G5 has a 23 stage pipeline, thats 3 longer than the P4. The G4 has like what? 7? 8? I honestly don't know, but is a lot less than 23. Depending on what kind of code was run on the G4 and G5, you could get widly different scores. If it was a bunch of easily predictable loops, then the G5 would win. If its some random code that is running and the G5 has to flush its pipeline, then its gonna run slower. If the code and data will fit in the G4's L1-3 cache, its gonna run faster. If its got to go to memory a lot, G5 is gonna win. It doesn't surprise me that the G5 doesn't win in everything. What I'd be interested in is a G5 1.6 or 1.7 vs a dual 1.42 G4. The G5 isn't going to win in those tests, and I think thats the reason that suddenly the 1.25 is the only G4 you can still buy from apple.

allpar
Jul 27, 2003, 09:13 AM
Or maybe they went with the 1.25 because they are cheaper...after all, the 1.42 is probably an overclocked 1.25, and I can see all sorts of additional expenses with that... but I'm hoping the dual-G4 is nearly as fast as the 1.6 G5 since I've ordered one!

DakotaGuy
Jul 27, 2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by Likvid
Abstract:

You don't buy a Mac to run Microsoft software, why have a Mac then?

I really don't understand people that got a Mac and that uses Microsoft software, there are alternatives like OpenOffice that works very good and even better in some cases.

The only reason Office v.X is dissed is because it is a MS product. I will defend it and say it is an excellent product. I use it all the time and it works well. I teach in a school that is all PC's and it works perfect going from the PC's to the Mac and vise versa. Some people will deal with all kinds of problems and settings to make things compatible just so they don't have any MS products on their Mac. That is fine for them, but for me, I like to just save and open with the exact same results everytime no matter what platform I am using with no worry.

allpar
Jul 28, 2003, 07:49 AM
There are other reasons to dis Office. #1 is price. #2 is Access - it stinks but is the standard and they will not port it to the Mac. #3 is the lack of keyboard equivalents in Office x. #4 is the way Office x does not bring in preferences from Office 98. And then of course there's the abysmal charting/graphing.

gopher
Jul 28, 2003, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by allpar
There are other reasons to dis Office. #1 is price. #2 is Access - it stinks but is the standard and they will not port it to the Mac. #3 is the lack of keyboard equivalents in Office x. #4 is the way Office x does not bring in preferences from Office 98. And then of course there's the abysmal charting/graphing.

We had a rep from the Mac Business Unit show up to our Mac User Group monthly meeting. He said Access for the Mac would have taken them more time to port to the Mac than a century. They did a feasibility study. I find that hard to believe, but that was their excuse. The wealthiest company in the world can hire enough people to program a century of programming in a year. What's wrong with that picture?

rundevilrun
Jul 28, 2003, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by gopher
We had a rep from the Mac Business Unit show up to our Mac User Group monthly meeting. He said Access for the Mac would have taken them more time to port to the Mac than a century.

Sounds like the windows version of access was developed by putting a million monkeys in a room full of computers... :D

allpar
Jul 28, 2003, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by gopher
We had a rep from the Mac Business Unit show up to our Mac User Group monthly meeting. He said Access for the Mac would have taken them more time to port to the Mac than a century. They did a feasibility study. I find that hard to believe, but that was their excuse. The wealthiest company in the world can hire enough people to program a century of programming in a year. What's wrong with that picture?

Well...I'll say this...Access is very badly written. It is extremely slow and always has been (try running side by side with Paradox!), and seems buggy as well. I say this after using it quite a bit on the Windows side since it's free, and you can't argue that spending three times the time on the project will cost more than $100. "But what would happen if you left?" Well, I left, and still maintain their Access stuff...because nobody else knows it!

Anyway, back to the point. I'd guess Access is largely built on VisualBasic, and if VisualBasic isn't on the Mac, they'd have to start from scratch, and would end up with something better and faster than Access for Windows. But one version behind which would be a fatal flaw since Access' file format changes iwth every version, and no going back!

Time for a ground-up rewrite of Access in C so they can port it!

MisterMe
Jul 28, 2003, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by allpar
Well...I'll say this...Access is very badly written. It is extremely slow and always has been (try running side by side with Paradox!), and seems buggy as well. I say this after using it quite a bit on the Windows side since it's free, and you can't argue that spending three times the time on the project will cost more than $100. "But what would happen if you left?" Well, I left, and still maintain their Access stuff...because nobody else knows it!I don't know about Access now, but soon after it was released originally, it was a disaster. Early adopters lost a lot of data when they tried to use it. It is no coincidence that M$ bought dBase clone FoxPro after it released Access.
Originally posted by allpar
Anyway, back to the point. I'd guess Access is largely built on VisualBasic, and if VisualBasic isn't on the Mac, they'd have to start from scratch, and would end up with something better and faster than Access for Windows. But one version behind which would be a fatal flaw since Access' file format changes iwth every version, and no going back!I would guess that Access is not built on VisualBasic, at least no more so than M$ Excel. IIRC, Access was around before VB became as important as it is now. It is true that VB is not a standalone development system on the Mac. However, VB is on the Mac as part of Office v.X in the form of VB for Applications.

allpar
Jul 28, 2003, 01:03 PM
I understand VB Mac is a subset of full VB.

While the core of Access may be C or whatever, I suspect a lot of its functionality is built around that core...in VB. I could be wrong, very wrong!

MrMacMan
Jul 28, 2003, 01:31 PM
Well I mean from the limited testing you can't get much from this data.

I will see when my apple store gets them in and test em. :)