PowerMac G5 1.6GHz PSBench 7 Results [Archive]

macrumors12345

Aug 26, 2003, 07:12 PM

These scores look good. Keep in mind that PSBench calculates the overall score in a mindless way (summing the individual times) that puts a vast majority of the "total score" weight on just four tests: accented edges, pointillize, water color polar, and radial blur. Coincidentally (or maybe not...conspiracy theory?), these are the 4 tests in which the G5 does particularly poorly, so the fact that it beats the Athlon 2200+ in the overall score is actually quite impressive. Basically, you should think of the overall score as just consisting of those 4 benchmarks I mentioned.

A much better "overall" benchmark is to look at the number of tests each machine won (though this is still imperfect - in fact, there is no perfect benchmark in this case unless you know with what frequency you do each type of operation). Ignoring the lone DP machine, the P4/3.06 HT won the most tests (10) - no surprise there. The G5/1.6 won the second most (5), and the Athlon 3000+ won the fewest (4). I would not be surprised if overall the G5/1.6 could match the Athlon 3000+, though still fall somewhat short of the P4/3.06 HT (but then you are comparing bottom of the line Mac vs. top of the line PC, so what do you expect?).

Stella

Aug 26, 2003, 07:13 PM

I think the results are quite impressive, considering the 1.6Ghz is the very low end processor.

Be interesting to see the1.8 and especially the Dual 2Ghz beasty..

RalphNumbers

Aug 26, 2003, 07:34 PM

They say:
With Photoshop 7 running, we set 300-340 MB physical RAM memory (out of 512 MB) was used, so disk swapping did occur on occasion, though not often.

Anyyone see a good reason to set the RAM for photoshop so low?

And why does he say he has 1GB of RAM at the begining and only 512MB here?

I get the feeling the G5 would have scored somewhat better if it had a bit more ram allocated to photoshop.

Stike

Aug 26, 2003, 07:41 PM

With those scores at hand... would you like to imagine a 1.2 GHz G5 Powerbook? Would people still want it after seeing those scores?

Mav451

Aug 26, 2003, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by marco114
One thing i didn't like about the test is that it did start to use the disk at some periods. Once it does that, it really becomes an unfair test and does not show the true power of the processor.

You should allocate as much RAM as possible to Photoshop and not let it use disk cache. Otherwise, it will really slow down the results.. A 50GB file however with 300GB of RAM, it should really never use disk cache in my opinion... but.. oh well.

It does however show the speed in a basica real-life situation.. so it's not too bad.

This is a good point since "most" PShop users would have 1 gig open (i.e. not running warcraft 3 in the background while burning some cd's, while watching finding nemo lol)

HD I/O can vary greatly! But the Apple has SATA. I'm not sure the other test systems would had PATA's or SATAs or even SCSI's!!

Additionally, the 1.6G5 is tested with 1Gb, while the Ace hardware results are from 512, that's actually "300-340MB".

The motherboards that the Athlons were tested on aren't even mentioned--Nforce2 or Via? Via tends to underperform particularly in memory intensive applications and overall is considerably slower.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MzY0LDI=
pay attention to the Content Creation Benchmark (yes the 2.8 is the old B model running 533fsb, but again the diff between via and nforce)

Regardless, the optimizations are amazing (the 3 test specifically: 10 Despeckle, RGB-CMYK, and Reduce Size 60%)...the PC's aren't even close--clearly some good tweaks there :)

bousozoku

Aug 26, 2003, 07:52 PM

I was pleasantly surprised to use PS7 on a 1.6 GHz G5 tonight.

This one did not have the G5 plug-in but was surprisingly quick. It was ready to go and I was still waiting for it. ;) I made a layer copy of a 16 MB file and ran some filters on the copy, then reduced the opacity. All of it was so quick it made me wonder why my dual 800 is so slow. :D

RalphNumbers

Aug 26, 2003, 07:55 PM

nevermind...

MrMacMan

Aug 26, 2003, 07:55 PM

Yeah this is a decent result of the testing, the G5 scores okay for the single.

I want to see a single 2.0 vs. 3 GHZ P4.

That would be a good test.

jettredmont

Aug 26, 2003, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by RalphNumbers
They say:

Anyyone see a good reason to set the RAM for photoshop so low?

And why does he say he has 1GB of RAM at the begining and only 512MB here?

I get the feeling the G5 would have scored somewhat better if it had a bit more ram allocated to photoshop.

That note was for the PC tests, not the G5 test (he didn't say what memory allocations he used there). It is a quote from the Ace Hardware article.

jettredmont

Aug 26, 2003, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by Mav451
The motherboards that the Athlons were tested on aren't even mentioned--Nforce2 or Via? Via tends to underperform particularly in memory intensive applications and overall is considerably slower.

I despise Ace's layout ... makes it nearly impossible to find the "beginning" of an article you're reading. However, if you follow the links from the front for that article (click the "Barton: 512 KB Athlon XP Reviewed" link on the right), you will come across this page, which gives the specifics on the PC configurations:

http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=50000366

nForce 2 was the Athlon's chipset. Granite Bay was the P4 chipset.

AidenShaw

Aug 26, 2003, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by Mav451
But the Apple has SATA. I'm not sure the other test systems would had PATA's or SATAs or even SCSI's!!

With a single disk, there would be very little difference between a 7200 RPM SATA disk and a 7200 RPM PATA disk.

The difference between 150 MB/sec and 133 MB/sec is noise when the disk's transfer rate is around 50 MB/sec.

SCSI would be about the same - the disks are usually a bit faster, but SCSI has more command overhead.

SATA's big advantages are the smaller cables, and the fact that no drive is a slave. A two-disk master/slave PATA setup can really get bogged down. SCSI and SATA handle multiple drives better.

Catfish_Man

Aug 26, 2003, 08:31 PM

It's weird how the G5 *crushes* the competition in a few tests, and gets absolutely squashed in others. I wonder why that is.

jettredmont

Aug 26, 2003, 08:32 PM

Not to rain on the parade, but ...

The P4 configurations tested, using the Granite Bay chipset, are far from top-of-the-line today. They were current in Feb, 2003, not August 2003!

In particular, the FSB was significantly slower for those P4's than one you would buy today (today = Canterwood/800MHz FSB, not Granite Bay/533MHz).

So, as always, take benchmarks, especially against non-contemporaries, with a grain of salt.

Ref: Dell has a P4/3.06/800MHz bus with a workstation video card for $2000 after rebate:

Dell Precision™ Workstation 360 Desktop
Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor, 3.00GHz, 512K / 800 Front
Side Bus
Qty: 1
Price: $2,160.00

(rebate is $150)

AidenShaw

Aug 26, 2003, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Catfish_Man
It's weird how the G5 *crushes* the competition in a few tests, and gets absolutely squashed in others. I wonder why that is.

And I wonder which tests were used in the Stevenote ;)

pgwalsh

Aug 26, 2003, 08:57 PM

Good to see the 1.6 Ghz G5 performing well against some higher clocked competitors. I imagine that the 200 mhz to 400 mhz difference in the 1.8 and 2.0 G5 to fair a bit better with the faster bus etc.

I'm curious how the 2.0 Ghz G5 will compare to the Athlon 2x or an Opteron 2X computer. I imagine there will be some gain, but not much with 400 Mhz difference. For xServe we really need to look at Opeteron......

Makosuke

Aug 26, 2003, 09:01 PM

Holy silicon on a stick!

Assuming those benchmarks are even close to correct, the G5 is one helluva fast chip. The fact that, when you're comparing a 1.6Ghz single processor vs a 3Ghz P4 or a dual "2200" high-end Athlon setup, and the G5 is never less than half the speed of the competition, close in most tests, and toasts everything else in a few.

That's downright impressive, if you ask me, even if the PCs aren't the absolute top of the line for this week--neither is the 1.6, since it's using somewhat slower tech in the guts, and is the bottom of the line.

Unless things don't scale anywhere near linearly for some reason, that puts a DP 2.0 as being faster than pretty much anything in pretty much every test. Cool--get me some of that.

synthetickittie

Aug 26, 2003, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by myrdred23
This still doesn't say anything about the "strange" Xbench results. The test compares PCs to the new G5, which is not to say is not useful, it is very much, but doesn't draw a bottom online on G4 vs G5 performance.

Anyone with a MDD 2x1.42 care to run that test so we can have a COMPLETE set of results?

I have a 1.42.. I'll try and get back with the results

macrumors12345

Aug 26, 2003, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by jettredmont
Not to rain on the parade, but ...

The P4 configurations tested, using the Granite Bay chipset, are far from top-of-the-line today. They were current in Feb, 2003, not August 2003!

(rebate is $150)

Yeah, but the G5 was only using DDR333, so to the extent that memory bandwidth affected the results, the G5 will also improve with the 1.8 and 2.0 Ghz models.

Furthermore, it is clear that no single processor machine will match the Dual 2 Ghz G5 in Photoshop. And the Dual Xeons only have the 533 Mhz bus, not the 800 Mhz bus, so the 533 Mhz is, coincidentally, probably the relevant bus to be testing.

AidenShaw

Aug 26, 2003, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by Makosuke
[the 1.6] is the bottom of the line.

You mean it's lower than an iBook or an eMac????

It would be closer to say that every Power Mac G5 is close to top of the line. Identical (or very, very similar) architecture, and a fairly small spread in CPU speeds.

By comparison, the Pentium 4 family ranges from a 1.7GHz Celeron with a 400 MHz bus to a 3.2GHz P4 on an 800 MHz bus (with dual 3.06GHz on 533MHz as well).

The "bottom of the line" Power Mac G5 is not an econo-box - it's more like the Bentley of the Rolls-Royce line.

Originally posted by Makosuke
Assuming those benchmarks are even close to correct, the G5 is one helluva fast chip. The fact that, when you're comparing a 1.6Ghz single processor vs a 3Ghz P4 or a dual "2200" high-end Athlon setup, and the G5 is never less than half the speed of the competition, close in most tests, and toasts everything else in a few.

Don't spend too much time looking at GHz - it's a myth, you know ;) . The G5 does well per MHz - but it doesn't have nearly as many MHz as the other guys.

The 1.6 is 80% of the speed of the top G5, and it's second to February's Pentium. Even linear scaling will put the 2.0GHz more or less even to a 3.2 GHz P4 with a current 800MHz mobo.

Apple's at least back in the ballgame, but these numbers say that it's a "base hit", not a "home run". Jobs' "world's fastest computer" claims might not seem justified once independent real world testing starts.

MacQuest

Aug 26, 2003, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by jettredmont
....Dell has a P4/3.06/800MHz bus with a workstation video card for $2000 after rebate:

(rebate is $150)

Cool. By the way, what OS do you get the [dis]pleasure of using? Oh, "the crappy popular one" or "the free and unsupported one"?

Yeah. I'll pass. I'll pay a premium for quality AND support anytime.

Wonder Boy

Aug 26, 2003, 09:57 PM

I used a 1.6 tonight and was not impressed. it didnt seem much (if at all) than the g4 quicksilver next to it. Also, smeagol still seams to have kinks in it. Soundtrack quit on me at random several times, then the computer just shut off all together. i also was not impressd with the bench mark results. the g5 "won" about 4 results. not good.

synthetickittie

Aug 26, 2003, 10:05 PM

ok I just used my 1.42 for for the ps7bench advanced and the first test it actually beat the 1.6 g5 but after that it just got spanked for the next 5, I mean it wasnt even close. I stopped the testing after that because it just make me more jealous the more I tested. To put on top of that Im working with 2gb's of ram here.

etoiles

Aug 26, 2003, 10:15 PM

cool stuff...so is Photoshop 8 going to be optimized even further or is it 'just' going to have the same G5 enabler as in the current release ? Could we see another dramatic speed increase if the whole thing got re-compiled for the G5 ?

Edot

Aug 26, 2003, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by synthetickittie
ok I just used my 1.42 for for the ps7bench advanced and the first test it actually beat the 1.6 g5 but after that it just got spanked for the next 5, I mean it wasnt even close. I stopped the testing after that because it just make me more jealous the more I tested. To put on top of that Im working with 2gb's of ram here.

This machine is also a dual!? Right? I think the 1.6 did well in a comparison of two different tests!?? Apple is the only one so far who has performed benchmarks on both machines with the same tests. I think their results are the most reliable right now. As far as the performance of the 1.6 on the tests shown, aside from the comparative faults, look pretty good. This is a single processor machine at almost half the clock speed of some of those machines. I think it did very well. Now if we can only get someone to test the 2Ghz, when they come around, against the Xeon and P4 with the same continuity that Apple showed at WWDC.

synthetickittie

Aug 26, 2003, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by Edot
This machine is also a dual!? Right? I think the 1.6 did well in a comparison of two different tests!?? Apple is the only one so far who has performed benchmarks on both machines with the same tests. I think their results are the most reliable right now. As far as the performance of the 1.6 on the tests shown, aside from the comparative faults, look pretty good. This is a single processor machine at almost half the clock speed of some of those machines. I think it did very well. Now if we can only get someone to test the 2Ghz, when they come around, against the Xeon and P4 with the same continuity that Apple showed at WWDC.

Yes it is dual. Its the one they released at the end of january this year I think or was it the beginning of February? But anyways I ordered it as soon as they came out and got it about 2 months later.

adamfilip

Aug 26, 2003, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by Stella
the 1.6Ghz is the very low end processor.

Oh common! its 1.6 ghz thats 1600mhz.. if i said here use my 1600 mhz g4 thats no LOW end processor.. geeze people

Concordant

Aug 26, 2003, 11:12 PM

Here's a dual Xeon 3.06 Ghz machine for comparision.
2 GB Ram (70% allocated), 533 Mhz bus, Photoshop 7.01, 50 MB Test.

90 degree clockwise rotation | 0.3| 0.3| 0.3|
9 degree clockwise rotation | 2.1| 2.1| 2.1 |
.9 degree clockwise rotation | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
1 pixel gaussian blur | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 |
3.7 pixel gaussian blur | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
8.5 pixel gaussian blur | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
50%, 1 pixel, 0 level unsharp mask | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.6 |
50%, 3.7 pixel, 1 level unsharp mask | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.3 |
50%, 10 pixel, 5 level unsharp mask | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.4 |
despeckle filter | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
RGB to CMYK | 5.3 | 5.5 | 5.3 |
60% image reduction | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
lens flare filter | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.4 |
color halftone filter | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.2 |
NTSC colors filter | 2.9 | 2.9 | 2.9 |
accented edges brushstrokes | 11.8 | 11.8 | 11.7 |
pointillize filter | 6.7 | 6.7 | 6.8 |
watercolor filter | 28.1 | 28.2 | 28.4 |
polar coordinates filter | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.3 |
radial blur filter | 17.3 | 17.2 | 17.3 |
lighting effects filter | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.3 |

Total Time: ~93.4 seconds.

I'll see if I can dig up some current P4 scores later on...

whawho

Aug 26, 2003, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by AidenShaw

But don't panic, at last the latest G5 Mac is roughly as fast as a Pentium

And an OS that's 3 times better:) ... I think the concensus around here is we like Macs and we like our Macs as fast as or Faster than the top PC speed. And we love the Mac experience...for the most part. It's been the PC users argument for years... "Oh Macs are slow" well you know what not anymore.

um...let me guess next you'll say they're more expensive and I can build my PC for blah blah...

Let us Mac fans enjoy our G5's and using our Macs... If you don't want to buy into Steve Job's Keynotes and Apple products then don't.. :rolleyes:

Mudbug

Aug 26, 2003, 11:50 PM

This thread has the possibility (as had many other "scores" threads before it) of becoming a pissing contest between one machine and the other. I know that's pretty much what the figures are for, but still...
Anyway, I'm chiming in with my "pleasantly suprised" feelings towards these scores. I feel as though I've somehow stayed out of the "it will run circles around anything else" mindset and thought realistically about this. Sure it's new. Sure it's stuff most of us don't understand (64 bits). Sure it uses a LOT of ram. But what I figured would happen happened. It performed really well in heated competition of it's peers. We're talking about thousandths of seconds on most of these tests. You can't really fathom how quick that is, and you certainly won't notice it with the naked eye if the machines were side by side.

Does that make me want one less?

Nu-uh. I still want one. I may even want one more now that I've seen this. But I'll hold out for a dual - because even tho as many of you have pointed out Photoshop is not a 64 bit app, it is however built to take advantage of multiple processors, lots of ram, and lots of drive space. And I plan on feeding one to the gills when I'm able.

daveg5

Aug 27, 2003, 12:03 AM

how could they do this test without a dual 1.4 g4 for reference, thats the only way mac users can get a true idea of whats going on.
oops just saw synthetickittie's post so i guess it spanked the g4 can you give us some data cause i want to see g4vs g5 caomparisons in real life apps

action snake

Aug 27, 2003, 12:06 AM

i benchmarked my 867 g4 and got myself down. Although i still love it, it's starting to act like an old dog that just doesn't play like it used to.

maxterpiece

Aug 27, 2003, 12:08 AM

Actually, in the last 15 years or so, I'd say Macs have had the reputation of being faster for the majority of that time. From the time the G3 came out to about the summer of 2000, I think people thought of Apples as being faster. Over the years I'd say the main knocks on Apple have been that their machines are too expensive, and too incompatible/lacking software (particularly games). It is only in the last 3 or so years that Apple has flat out fallen apart in terms of speed. When the 400mhz iMac came out in 1999, there was no brand name PC that could touch it at its price. In these last 4 years Apple (or should I say Motorola/IBM) has quadrupled processor speeds. Intel and co. have gone up about 8 fold. Now Apples are slower. The G5 appears to have narrowed that gap to the point where it is questionable as to who is the fastest, but unlike the 400mhz G3 iMac of '99 (a period I would consider Apple's high point of the last 10 years), we don't have G5s in an iMac.
Oh, and one comment on the new iMac - Apple should never have switched to the LCD display - the price of the new iMacs make their niche too small. With the original iMacs, other intro level comps were pricier than they are now. iMacs should cost $700-$800 - now I know that is what the eMac costs, but it seems to me that Apple is pretty indifferent to the eMac. They don't market it. They don't make it cool or give add anything particularly innovative to it (like they did do with the iMac.
Sorry if I wandered off topic.

Originally posted by whawho
And an OS that's 3 times better:) ... I think the concensus around here is we like Macs and we like our Macs as fast as or Faster than the top PC speed. And we love the Mac experience...for the most part. It's been the PC users argument for years... "Oh Macs are slow" well you know what not anymore.

um...let me guess next you'll say they're more expensive and I can build my PC for blah blah...

Let us Mac fans enjoy our G5's and using our Macs... If you don't want to buy into Steve Job's Keynotes and Apple products then don't.. :rolleyes:

3.1416

Aug 27, 2003, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by maxterpiece
Apple is pretty indifferent to the eMac

Of course; the profit margin has to be pretty low. But the eMac is a far better value than the iMac, which is ludicrously overpriced, especially now that you can get a dual G4 tower for less than the midrange model (no monitor, but still).

whawho

Aug 27, 2003, 12:23 AM

Originally posted by maxterpiece
Actually, in the last 15 years or so, I'd say Macs have had the reputation of being faster for the majority of that time. From the time the G3 came out to about the summer of 2000, I think people thought of Apples as being faster. Over the years I'd say the main knocks on Apple have been that their machines are too expensive, and too incompatible/lacking software (particularly games).

Yup you're right. I meant more as of lately last few years (since I've owned one.) when referring to the speed.

ultrafiel

Aug 27, 2003, 12:25 AM

Ok, I've decided to do my own benchmarks on a new Pentium 4. Processes:

Start windows: 20 secs
Launch Photoshop 7: 8 secs
Start PSBench: 2 secs
Get hit by Sobig.F: 0.5 secs
Swear at my computer: 1 min.
Spread virus to friends: continuous
Try to patch my computer: 2 days
Start over again after patch: 20 sec
Launch Photoshop: 8 secs
Start PSBench: 2 secs
Get hit by a variant of Sobig.F: 1.5 secs
Curse at my computer: 10 min
Spread new virus: continuous
Try to patch: 1 day
Take computer to shooting range: 30 min.
Fill computer full of lead: 1 hour.
Go home and relax: 3 hours...

Ya that about covers it. I know it isn't very scientific. But I'll stay with OS X. Besides any of you thinking that your G5 is too slow, feel free to donate it to me. My 450 AGP G4 could use a nice retirement.;)

theRebel

Aug 27, 2003, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by jettredmont

Ref: Dell has a P4/3.06/800MHz bus with a workstation video card for $2000 after rebate:

Dell Precision™ Workstation 360 Desktop
Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor, 3.00GHz, 512K / 800 Front
Side Bus
Qty: 1
Price: $2,160.00

(rebate is $150) [/B]

The price that I came up with was $2261 before the rebate and that did not include any FireWire and only had a basic CD-RW drive (no DVD capabilities at all; no read and no write). What did you take off the config in order to lower the price?

Also you should be aware that you can buy a 1.8Ghz G5 PowerMac with a CD-RW/DVD Combo drive for $2199 from the Apple Store. Thus, when you figure in that Dell also charges at least $75 for shipping (whereas the PowerMac ships for free), your Dell Workstation costs more than the 1.8Ghz PowerMac.

Pale Fire

Aug 27, 2003, 01:19 AM

Someone mentioned in the MacNN thread that according to Adobe the optimized Adobe Plugin was only optimized for the basic operations.
Now this is strictly a conjecture, but I suspect "water color" and the other bigger filters aren't considered a basic operations...

Which means this is only scratching the surface of what Photoshop will be able to do with the G5.

Doesn't this screaming and cursing echo a little of the 68000->Power PC transition?

theRebel

Aug 27, 2003, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by AidenShaw
The 1.6 is 80% of the speed of the top G5, and it's second to February's Pentium. Even linear scaling will put the 2.0GHz more or less even to a 3.2 GHz P4 with a current 800MHz mobo.

How do you figure the single 1.6Ghz G5 PowerMac with a slower bus, slower RAM, etc, to be 80% of the speed of a Dual 2Ghz PowerMac?

mustang_dvs

Aug 27, 2003, 01:48 AM

Perhaps we would do well to keep a few things mind --

The differences between the 1.6GHz G5 machine and it's faster syblings are greater than just clock and frontside bus: the 1.6 uses slower 333MHz DDR, limited to 4GB, the 1.8 and Dual 2.0 use 400MHz DDR, in up to 8GB; the 1.6 has standard 33/66MHz PCI, whereas the 1.8 and 2.0s use the 133MHz PCI-X standard.

Ultimately, unless you're going to run Linux or employ your new machines for data crunching or custom scientific applications, comparing Pentiums to PPC 970s serves no valid purpose (beyond nerd bragging rights).

Ultimately, the advantage for most end-users lies in the operating system, where OS X bests all others.

daveg5

Aug 27, 2003, 02:25 AM

try running classic mode is it really fast is photoshop7 faster in this mode like before esp when scrolling high resolution images

hose this!

Aug 27, 2003, 02:55 AM

Just a question - a popular sentiment on the most recent PB thread is that if Apple update their PowerBooks (uh, emphasis on Power?) with a speed bumped G4, people should still buy one, it will be a great laptop, etc.

Now on this thread, people are saying "wait til everything gets written in 64 bit code! Then that G5 will kick a**."

Ahem. So if a year or two from now, when everything's should be optimized to 64 bit code, what am I supposed to think about the $2500 people are saying I should drop on a new G4 rev PB? Could you people please tell those others in the PB thread to stop singing the praises of a speed-bumped G4 PB update?

Talk about FUD. I thought people on this board were supposed to "Think Different", not toe the Apple Corporate/Macolyte line.

Props to Neo. Skeptics, right or wrong, keep the rest of us honest. Those issues are legitimate. Let them be discussed.

Those of you talking about banning/censoring him for raising a voice of dissent should consider a job as White House Press Secretary. Wait a minute... Ari Fleischer, I know you've been retired for the past few months - is that you?

Ertai

Aug 27, 2003, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by myrdred23
Another thing to note, is although the G5 only wins a minority of the tests, if you actually look at how well each machine came, you would notice that the G5 scored SECOND out of the seven machines, with only the P4 3.06 HT beating it.

Just to clear things up: the G5 is second worst, not second best in this test (the numbers mean "time in seconds"). So it takes the G5 1.6 about 3 minutes to do this test whereas a P4 3.06 system does the same thing in slightly more than 2 minutes.

Concerning the Opteron and its Photoshop performance, here's the link [this one's for the pro who thinks "a dual processor Opteron 246 ... will NEVER beat a Dual 2 Ghz G5 in Photoshop. NEVER]:

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=opteron244&page=6

As you can see, an Opteron 244 system finishes the Photoshop test in only 71.2 secs, the fastest and most up-to date Xeon (3.06/1 MB) in 74.1.

So stop arguing about speed matters. It's pathetic.

Analog Kid

Aug 27, 2003, 03:42 AM

Originally posted by hose this!
So if a year or two from now, when everything's should be optimized to 64 bit code, what am I supposed to think about the $2500 people are saying I should drop on a new G4 rev PB? Could you people please tell those others in the PB thread to stop singing the praises of a speed-bumped G4 PB update?

You should think you're dropping $2500 on a good laptop. Or you can roll that $2500 into a good desktop. You can't expect parity between the two...

There's people who think Transmeta makes a good laptop because they like the benefits of the Crusoe. There's people who want a top end P4 in a little box they can carry and plug into the wall because they like the benefits of that.

Personally I think the G4 is an excellent laptop processor, and I think the G5 will be an excellent desktop processor. I'm not towing the Apple line, I just agree with the design tradeoff's they're making.

I'm not ignorant-- I'm a professional engineer who's spent his career on both Windows boxen and Unix workstations and eventually decided that Apple's current product lineup best matches the way I work and satisfies the factors most important to me.

If you prefer different design tradeoffs, there's a whole spectrum of other options out there.

Why do people act so surprised that posters on an Apple discussion forum, who have looked at the options out there and put their money into Apple products might agree with Apple's choices?

kaos_de_moria

Aug 27, 2003, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by hose this!
Just a question - a popular sentiment on the most recent PB thread is that if Apple update their PowerBooks (uh, emphasis on Power?) with a speed bumped G4, people should still buy one, it will be a great laptop, etc.

Now on this thread, people are saying "wait til everything gets written in 64 bit code! Then that G5 will kick a**."

Ahem. So if a year or two from now, when everything's should be optimized to 64 bit code, what am I supposed to think about the $2500 people are saying I should drop on a new G4 rev PB? Could you people please tell those others in the PB thread to stop singing the praises of a speed-bumped G4 PB update?

Talk about FUD. I thought people on this board were supposed to "Think Different", not toe the Apple Corporate/Macolyte line.

Props to Neo. Skeptics, right or wrong, keep the rest of us honest. Those issues are legitimate. Let them be discussed.

Those of you talking about banning/censoring him for raising a voice of dissent should consider a job as White House Press Secretary. Wait a minute... Ari Fleischer, I know you've been retired for the past few months - is that you?

i hope you're seriously interested... otherwise this is a waste of time...

buying a mobile is something different than buying a table computer. in my opinion the most important factors are mobility and stability.

so what you should look at is:

- does the mobile fit in a bag i would usually use when i go to work/uni?

- will i be ready to carry this weight, if not -> check for a smaller model

- how long is the battery time? if the battery is too short, is there electricity at the place where i would use my mobile normally? if not -> check for another model.

- is the mobile stable?
- what material is is made off? (careful, there is PC laptop with a metal like painting)
- where are the plugs
- if there is fragile plugs, are they well enough covered when you have to stuff the mobile in a bag

if all these things are answered and your happy with those you'll have only little choice in mobile models left over. then you might think about speed, OS, beauty.

i have a tiBook 1st generation. i don't treat it very well, but it's still quite OK. if i had the money to buy a new one, i'd take a 12inch AluBook. that would be the personal device for me. i would maybe wait for the updates as there was rumors of a thinner 12inch model.

- kaos

kaos_de_moria

Aug 27, 2003, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by Analog Kid
I'm not ignorant-- I'm a professional engineer who's spent his career on both Windows boxen and Unix workstations and eventually decided that Apple's current product lineup best matches the way I work and satisfies the factors most important to me.

*g* nick names in forums can be misleading :D

hvfsl

Aug 27, 2003, 05:30 AM

In the original article it said that the 1.6Ghz G5 is about the same as a Athlon XP2400. Well the Athlon XP 2400 is clocked at around 1.7Ghz with a 266Mhz bus, so this does not look so good for the G5.

Mac Kiwi

Aug 27, 2003, 06:35 AM

Until Panther is released and the apps being tested are fully optimized the benchs will just all need to be repeated,and even then if the 2ghz is to fast Mac users will jump on it and PC users will say its all lies,and vice versa.

I dont care if my G5 on order is not the fastest personal computer in the world as I never believed that anyway,but I do care thats its going to be a hell of a lot faster then the previous models, if you want your G5 to be so fast to make PC users eat crow then be under no illusions noone is going to admit anything,and this argument {in general} will carry on until the next rev of the G5 is released and then it will start all over again.What good does it do to have a G5 which is say .5 of a sec faster then a dual xeon,or .5 slower,so if you are looking forward to bragging rights then youre buying for the wrong reason.

Just be happy we are not sitting on a G4 1.6 dual or something and "still" waiting for the G5.

djwoolf

Aug 27, 2003, 06:52 AM

You people need to realize that no bench test is truly fair. ALL yes ALL tests are manipulated to show a particular manufacturers strong points. The most important thing about performance is: When I set it up does it peform to my needs? If you can answer yes to that question then taht is the only benchmark you need.

synthetickittie

Aug 27, 2003, 07:04 AM

for all the people who asked Im going to do the full test on my 1.42 a little latter and get back with the results. Anyone else here have a 1.42 also? Because I seriously did not think the 1.6g5 was going to be this much faster then my 1.42g4 because I had seen some cpu tests online (not apple ones) that even showed the 1.42g4 dual as being faster then the 1.6 g5...

stid

Aug 27, 2003, 07:29 AM

1.6GHz PowerPC G5
Bus 800MHz

1.8GHz PowerPC G5
Bus 900MHz

Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5
Bus 1GHz per processor

I'm shure that the 2Ghz with 1ghz per processor BUS will make the difference. If the test reported above are true, wi wil see a stunning performance here for 2.0 G5.

hose this!

Aug 27, 2003, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by kaos_de_moria
i hope you're seriously interested... otherwise this is a waste of time...

buying a mobile is something different than buying a table computer. in my opinion the most important factors are mobility and stability.

so what you should look at is:

- does the mobile fit in a bag i would usually use when i go to work/uni?

- will i be ready to carry this weight, if not -> check for a smaller model

- how long is the battery time? if the battery is too short, is there electricity at the place where i would use my mobile normally? if not -> check for another model.

- is the mobile stable?
- what material is is made off? (careful, there is PC laptop with a metal like painting)
- where are the plugs
- if there is fragile plugs, are they well enough covered when you have to stuff the mobile in a bag

if all these things are answered and your happy with those you'll have only little choice in mobile models left over. then you might think about speed, OS, beauty.

i have a tiBook 1st generation. i don't treat it very well, but it's still quite OK. if i had the money to buy a new one, i'd take a 12inch AluBook. that would be the personal device for me. i would maybe wait for the updates as there was rumors of a thinner 12inch model.

- kaos

Hey, thanks for the tips.

As someone who's been lugging laptops around on transatlantic business trips for 6 years, I had no idea those kinds of things were important. I thought the only thing that really mattered was the stability of the cup holder that slides out of the side of laptops. The PBs don't have this and I guess that's why I haven't bought one yet.

Who do you guys think you are assuming that every person who posts a comment critical of Apple products is some naive computer newbie?

There have been fair points raised about how to assess the value of Apple products, and not just in benchmarks, yet when this happens, a lot of people on this board seem eager to dismiss them or make convenient excuses for one aspect of their claim but not the others.

That the 1.6 G5 is not clearly blowing away the other processors it is being compared against SHOULD at least draw some acknowledgement that maybe the G5 isn't the huge leap forward against x86 processors that it was made out to be. Yet I'm hearing "Well, benchmarks are so subjective", "Those Photoshop filters aren't really the ones that matter", "The code hasn't been optimised to take advantage of 64 bits", etc.

Which brings me to the fundamental question from my earlier post that neither you nor Analog Kid addressed substantively. That is, if, with the introduction of the G5, we can assume that the OS and apps will move to 64 bit code (and should assume, or else why develop a 64 bit processor?), will a G4 rev PB be a good value if and when they are released?

Jeez, and as much as I covet the case and the OS of the PB as I do not own a Jetta or a Bimmer and I need something to get chicks with, I'm sorry but the answer is "No, a minor speed-bump rev to a G4 PB is NOT a good value at $2500", especially if G5 PBs are due within 12 months time. Why can't you just admit that? Come on now, it will be good for you. Say it with me.... "Apple is phasing out 32 bit processors from its general architecture"

If they release increasingly faster G5 PBs after I get a 1st gen G5 PB, then fine, I'll still be happy with my purchase b/c I'll be able to run the latest 64 bit software 3 years from now somewhat effectively.

The same cannot be said about the G4. It's a lame-duck architecture by definition now. I'm not saying this, the G5 is. Note: architecture and product are not the same thing; lame-duck doesn't mean useless, just more predictably obsolescent.

** Historical note: In the beginning, Steve introduced the G4 PowerBook. And this was good. The G4 ran crucial applications like Photoshop a lot faster than wintel machines at the time. And this was good. The blindly faithful sang hosannahs (no, actually, taunts) about the superiority of their hardware. And this was... alright. But then the forces of wintel conspired to make their machines as fast and then faster than The Mac. And this was natural. And then the blindly faithful changed their tune; they began to sing that processor specs weren't really relevant. Megahertz was a false idol and that "The Experience" equalled performance. "Nay," said the skeptics, "performance equals performance." But these blasphemers were quickly stoned by all-too eager Macolytes armed with puck mice they publicly praised as "innovative design" but secretly reviled And this was predictable. And then Steve passed down from the heavens the miracle of a 64bit G5, and once again the blindly faithful dusted off those hymn books praising processor specs and raw computing speed - yet still stoning all those skeptics who had been asking questions about performance. And this was unfortunate. Then the same parishoners, conveniently leaving their hymn book of Processor Prominence behind, then traveled to and fro the Thread of the Undying Question of PowerBook Updates so they could continue to recite their songs of Processor Irrelevance (which they had practiced so long and hard to learn by wrote) and convince the unwitting to pay $2500 for G4 PB Pardons. And this was hypocritical. Yet one rose among them to ask if this were so and quickly did the Macolytes raise their puck mice in wrath to smite down the blasphemer in their Temple of Smugness but before they could strike, this blasphemer declared "Yea, I say unto thee: Let he who paid a premium to buy an Apple Lisa before Apple quickly moved on to the Mac cast the first puck mouse."

And then...:eek:

adamfilip

Aug 27, 2003, 08:11 AM

take a dual 2ghz g5 with 6gb of ram
then take a intel p4 3.06 ghz at 800mhz bus with HT with 4 gigs of ram

open a 2 gig photoshop file

see which is the fastest computer!

apple is positioning the g5 as the fastest personal computer..
not the fastest workstation(even tho it may be priced like one)

im guessing that since the g5 can support more then 4 gigs of memory more can be done on it by those who need to do it.
especially big stuff

anyways..

remember when the first p4 came out.. at 1.4ghz.. people were cryling and complainging that the p3 at 1ghz was faster.. and in many respects it was.. the p4 was superscaler.. it can reach higher clock speeds. and cant do as much per clock speed.. but by being able to reach very high clock speeds it still ending up faster then the p3.. same thing is happening with the g5

if you were able to take a single g4 1.4 and a g5 1.4 the g4 would prob win.

but since the g5 is made to scale well mhz wise.. right now its
fast but soon it will be much faster.. you people just need some more patients.

remember sometimes your comparing a 3ghz processor to a 1.6 ghz processor.. the fact that the 1.6 can compete at all in some test is amazing

delton05

Aug 27, 2003, 08:22 AM

Jobs statement about the G5 being the fastest PC in the world redefines his ability to both suck and blow (apologies to Bart) at the same time ... with the truth!

http://forum.cubase.net/forum/Forum5/HTML/009443.html

Still, he understands the bankability of hype...100,000 orders

kaos_de_moria

Aug 27, 2003, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by hose this!
Hey, thanks for the tips.

As someone who's been lugging laptops around on transatlantic business trips for 6 years, I had no idea those kinds of things were important.

(...skipping the rest of the insults etc.)

hmm...
i'm not sure your post IS a reply to my post but anyway.

how should i know that you're a regular mobile user?

in the last three months three of my friend bought PC laptops. they never had mobiles before. i don't care what your OS is as long i don't have to do the support. for them these points i made here were helpful. and if you read my post again, did i say there is only stable apple mobiles? no. i said there is not many stable mobiles. and i still say that. but there is stable PC mobiles. you just have to know very well what you want and what to look for. that's the whole secret... no?

edit: i even wrote in my original post "then you might think about speed, OS, beauty." do you see the 2nd thing... it's "OS"...

synthetickittie

Aug 27, 2003, 09:05 AM

Here are the results from my 1.42ghz dual g4 powermac (fw800), 2gb of ram, GeForce4 Ti 128mbs, running 10.2.6.

90 Degree Rotate-1.0
9 Degree Rotate-3.6
.9 Degree Rotate-7.4
1 Gaussian-5.5
3.7 Gaussian-6.7
85 Gaussian-8.1
Unsharp 50/1/0-5.3
Unsharp 50/3.7/0-10.1
Unsharp 50/10/5-7.9
Despeckle-5.5
RGB-CMYK-7.6
60% Reduction-2.3
LensFlare-9.9
Color Halftone-11.2
NTSC Color-10.8
Accent Edge-18.2
Pointilize-19.6
Watercolor-37.8
Polar Coordinates-8.4
Radial Blur-32.6
Lighting-7.6

Cubeboy

Aug 27, 2003, 09:35 AM

Just a crude comparison of the overall time it took to finish the image for each processor:

1x1.6 GHz G5
Overall Time: 180.1 (sec)

1x3.06 GHz P4b
Overall Time: 124.6 (sec)

1xAthlon 3000+
Overall Time: 148 (sec)

1x2.0 GHz G5 (assuming linear scaling in overall time)
Overall Time: 144.08 (sec)

Trekkie

Aug 27, 2003, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by macrumors12345

Furthermore, it is clear that no single processor machine will match the Dual 2 Ghz G5 in Photoshop. And the Dual Xeons only have the 533 Mhz bus, not the 800 Mhz bus, so the 533 Mhz is, coincidentally, probably the relevant bus to be testing.

I work on intel servers in real life. FYI - Xeon DP FSB will go to 800MHz in 1Q 2004

macmax

Aug 27, 2003, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by ultrafiel
Ok, I've decided to do my own benchmarks on a new Pentium 4. Processes:

Start windows: 20 secs
Launch Photoshop 7: 8 secs
Start PSBench: 2 secs
Get hit by Sobig.F: 0.5 secs
Swear at my computer: 1 min.
Spread virus to friends: continuous
Try to patch my computer: 2 days
Start over again after patch: 20 sec
Launch Photoshop: 8 secs
Start PSBench: 2 secs
Get hit by a variant of Sobig.F: 1.5 secs
Curse at my computer: 10 min
Spread new virus: continuous
Try to patch: 1 day
Take computer to shooting range: 30 min.
Fill computer full of lead: 1 hour.
Go home and relax: 3 hours...

Ya that about covers it. I know it isn't very scientific. But I'll stay with OS X. Besides any of you thinking that your G5 is too slow, feel free to donate it to me. My 450 AGP G4 could use a nice retirement.;)

hahahhahahhaha, great, hehehhehhe!!!!

macrumors12345

Aug 27, 2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Mav451
how are you so sure that the Opteron can't outperform a dual xeon setup?

Because the Opteron is quite similar to the Athlon but with four key advantages: better floating point performance, 64-bit instructions, better memory bandwidth, and SSE2 support. Of those four advantages, only the last two are even relevant for Photoshop, and they probably will not be enough to offset the Xeon's HT advantage.

Regarding the benchmarks you posted, I will admit that the Opteron performed better than I expected. Unfortunately, since they only give the aggregate score (of what appears to be a PSBench run, from comparing the Athlon MP 2200 times to Ace's Athlon MP 2200 times), we have no idea how the Opteron and the Xeon actually compare to each other - all we are doing is comparing four filters (accent edges, pointillaze, water color, and radial blur). For the record, I doubt that the GamePC website was being dishonest when they gave the aggregate PSBench score - they probably just do not understand that the aggregate score is not meaningful for PSBench (which is understandable since they area gaming site, not a graphic design site).

The strange thing is that the PSBench aggregate score seems to be heavily memory constrained - that is partially why the Opteron is doing much better than the Athlon and the Xeon/3.06 1 MB does much better than the Xeon/3.06. But the G5/1.6 actually has the fastest memory subsystem of all the system's in Ace's test, so why doesn't it *really* clean up? Possibly cache is more important than memory bandwidth in this test (the Xeon 1 MB and the Opteron both have big caches), or possibly some key PSBench filters have not yet been optimized for the G5. It would be very helpful if we could actually see some detailed, consistent G4 PSBench scores, but those have yet to appear.

Incidentally, I did not say I was "so sure" the Xeon would beat the Opteron. I said that I would be quite surprised if the Opteron won in Photoshop. And I will still be surprised if the Opteron wins in Photoshop. What I am SURE of is that the Opteron will not beat the Dual G5 in Photoshop. You can bet money on that. (and in case it was unclear, getting a high aggregate score in PSBench does not constitute "winning", anymore than winning in an Apple run benchmark at WWDC constitutes "winning" - at a very minimum you need to win a clear majority of the subtests).

synthetickittie

Aug 27, 2003, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Cubeboy
Just a crude comparison of the overall time it took to finish the image for each processor:

1x1.6 GHz G5
Overall Time: 180.1 (sec)

1x3.06 GHz P4b
Overall Time: 124.6 (sec)

1xAthlon 3000+
Overall Time: 148 (sec)

1x2.0 GHz G5 (assuming linear scaling in overall time)
Overall Time: 144.08 (sec)

Ya thats probably close to what it would actually be.. but apple never said a single 2ghz g5 would be the fastest they said the dual 2ghz is the fastest. Where did I read that the g5 with dual processors gives a 90% increase in performance compared to it only having 1 processor of the same speed? Now obviously when you test it in the real world (photoshop its gonna gonna be 90% better then 144.08 seconds but it will definitely be better because photoshop does take advantage of dual processors.

macrumors12345

Aug 27, 2003, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Trekkie
I work on intel servers in real life. FYI - Xeon DP FSB will go to 800MHz in 1Q 2004

I'm sure it will. FYI, the G5 FSB will go to 1.2 Ghz in 1Q 2004 (or half of whatever they clockspeed is increased to). =) Question is whether faster memory will be available by then to support it. I don't know.

AidenShaw

Aug 27, 2003, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by macrumors12345
FYI, the G5 FSB will go to 1.2 Ghz in 1Q 2004 (or half of whatever they clockspeed is increased to). =) Question is whether faster memory will be available by then to support it. I don't know.

Multiples other than 2:1 are possible for the PPC970 FSB.

If the CPU speeds go up more quickly than memory speeds, they'll be able to keep the bus at 1GHz with faster CPUs - memory speeds won't limit the CPU speed.

Trekkie

Aug 27, 2003, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by macrumors12345
I'm sure it will. FYI, the G5 FSB will go to 1.2 Ghz in 1Q 2004 (or half of whatever they clockspeed is increased to). =) Question is whether faster memory will be available by then to support it. I don't know.

The beauty of good chipset design doesn't necessarily need faster memory chips, just more slower ones. On a server we released we took PC100 memory and used it on a 400MHz FSB by quad-pumping to and from 4 memory chips at once.

At the time, DDR memory had a 30% premium over PC100 so it made the system less expensive.

Now I don't know if doing this in the desktop world is a good idea, because adding 256MB of RAM get's pointless whe you have to buy 4 64MB DIMMs to do it. But in a server it's different.

macrumors12345

Aug 27, 2003, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by Cubeboy
Just a crude comparison of the overall time it took to finish the image for each processor:

1x1.6 GHz G5
Overall Time: 180.1 (sec)

1x3.06 GHz P4b
Overall Time: 124.6 (sec)

1xAthlon 3000+
Overall Time: 148 (sec)

1x2.0 GHz G5 (assuming linear scaling in overall time)
Overall Time: 144.08 (sec)

Please do not quote aggregate PSBench scores as a performance indicator. As I explained earlier, the aggregate scores are VERY heavily weighted towards just four filters, so they are not at all indicative of overall performance. It is like quoting RC5 scores to show how "fast" the G4 is compared to the P4 - it's just a single benchmark, so it's not meaningful.

If you want to scale, you should reduce the time of each benchmark by 20% and compare the two machines. I calculate that a SINGLE G5/2.0 would win in 9 or 10 of the 21 benchmarks then versus the P4/3.06 HT, so it would just fall short in PSBench. But don't worry, it will do even better in more comprehensive PS benchmarks.

macrumors12345

Aug 27, 2003, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Trekkie
[BNow I don't know if doing this in the desktop world is a good idea, because adding 256MB of RAM get's pointless whe you have to buy 4 64MB DIMMs to do it. But in a server it's different. [/B]

Yeah, it would be great if Apple went quad-channel, but I doubt that will happen. After all, it would mean that each time you wanted to upgrade the memory in the G5/1.6, you'd have to throw out all your DIMMs (since there are only four slots)! Okay, so maybe it wouldn't be so great... ;-)

macrumors12345

Aug 27, 2003, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Multiples other than 2:1 are possible for the PPC970 FSB.

If the CPU speeds go up more quickly than memory speeds, they'll be able to keep the bus at 1GHz with faster CPUs - memory speeds won't limit the CPU speed.

Of course they can scale the CPU - I wasn't implying that was an issue (after all, they are currently using a 1 Ghz bus with only "800 Mhz" memory). My point was that the benefits of a faster FSB are limited if you don't have a faster memory bandwidth to complement it.

Ertai

Aug 27, 2003, 10:09 AM

I don't want to be pedantic about those Photoshop figures, but after all, that's where this thread started. So to sum up my previous post: A G5 1.6 runs the Photoshop test in 3 minutes, a Xeon 3.06/1 MB in 74.1 seconds, a Opteron 244 2x1.8 MHz in 71.2 seconds. That's not just a bit faster. That's roughly 2.5 times faster. Now do you think a 2x2 GHz G5 is 2.5 times faster than a G5 1.6? Dream on...
And by the way: this isn't some freaking PC-benchmark. This is Photoshop. This is Apple homeland. Remember Photoshop? The application MC Steve used to "slaughter" P4s in his ceremonies I mean keynotes.

whooleytoo

Aug 27, 2003, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by macrumors12345
I'm sure it will. FYI, the G5 FSB will go to 1.2 Ghz in 1Q 2004 (or half of whatever they clockspeed is increased to). =) Question is whether faster memory will be available by then to support it. I don't know.

Well, Hynix claims they'll have volume DDR 500 production by next month - which would be a good match (and in good time) for an early 2004 release of 2.4GHz or 2.5GHz G5s.

They also expect to deliver DDRII 1GHz memory early next year, though I'd imagine that's more tentative; plus I don't know how easily that could be integrate into the G5 architecture.

Mike.

moped

Aug 27, 2003, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by synthetickittie
Here are the results from my 1.42ghz dual g4 powermac (fw800), 2gb of ram, GeForce4 Ti 128mbs, running 10.2.6.

90 Degree Rotate-1.0
9 Degree Rotate-3.6
.9 Degree Rotate-7.4
1 Gaussian-5.5
3.7 Gaussian-6.7
85 Gaussian-8.1
Unsharp 50/1/0-5.3
Unsharp 50/3.7/0-10.1
Unsharp 50/10/5-7.9
Despeckle-5.5
RGB-CMYK-7.6
60% Reduction-2.3
LensFlare-9.9
Color Halftone-11.2
NTSC Color-10.8
Accent Edge-18.2
Pointilize-19.6
Watercolor-37.8
Polar Coordinates-8.4
Radial Blur-32.6
Lighting-7.6
-----------------------------------------------
Synthetickittie,

I don't know what happened to your 1.42 dual but my 1.25 dual
gave me the following result.

90 Degree Rotate-0.9
9 Degree Rotate-2.8
.9 Degree Rotate-2.6
1 Gaussian-0.7
3.7 Gaussian-2.3
85 Gaussian-3.3
Unsharp 50/1/0-1.2
Unsharp 50/3.7/0-2.7
Unsharp 50/10/5-3.2
Despeckle-0.8
RGB-CMYK-3.5
60% Reduction-0.6
LensFlare-5.9
Color Halftone-6.2
NTSC Color-7.3
Accent Edge-22.4
Pointilize-19.3
Watercolor-48.1
Polar Coordinates-4.8
Radial Blur-34.5
Lighting-3.3

macrumors12345

Aug 27, 2003, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by synthetickittie
Here are the results from my 1.42ghz dual g4 powermac (fw800), 2gb of ram, GeForce4 Ti 128mbs, running 10.2.6.

90 Degree Rotate-1.0
9 Degree Rotate-3.6
.9 Degree Rotate-7.4
1 Gaussian-5.5
3.7 Gaussian-6.7
85 Gaussian-8.1
Unsharp 50/1/0-5.3
Unsharp 50/3.7/0-10.1
Unsharp 50/10/5-7.9
Despeckle-5.5
RGB-CMYK-7.6
60% Reduction-2.3
LensFlare-9.9
Color Halftone-11.2
NTSC Color-10.8
Accent Edge-18.2
Pointilize-19.6
Watercolor-37.8
Polar Coordinates-8.4
Radial Blur-32.6
Lighting-7.6

Thanks for the DP 1.42 scores synthetickittie, that was exactly what we needed! All I can say is, WOW. The SINGLE G5/1.6 absolutely obliterates the Dual 1.42 G4 in virtually every test - in fact, the Dual 1.42 only wins in three tests, despite the fact that we are testing a DP machine against an SP machine!!! Sorry to ask, but are you sure these results are accurate? It's just incredible.

If they are accurate, this also indicates at least one of two things (and probably both). (1) PSBench is a *terrible* Photoshop benchmark (I have a lot of respect for the PPC970, but come on, it is not THAT much faster than the MPC 7455). (2) The Dual G5 will absolutely kill Xeon/P4/Athlon/Opteron on more comprehensive Photoshop benchmarks.

macrumors12345

Aug 27, 2003, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by moped
-----------------------------------------------
Synthetickittie,

I don't know what happened to your 1.42 dual but my 1.25 dual
gave me the following result.

90 Degree Rotate-0.9
9 Degree Rotate-2.8
.9 Degree Rotate-2.6
1 Gaussian-0.7
3.7 Gaussian-2.3
85 Gaussian-3.3
Unsharp 50/1/0-1.2
Unsharp 50/3.7/0-2.7
Unsharp 50/10/5-3.2
Despeckle-0.8
RGB-CMYK-3.5
60% Reduction-0.6
LensFlare-5.9
Color Halftone-6.2
NTSC Color-7.3
Accent Edge-22.4
Pointilize-19.3
Watercolor-48.1
Polar Coordinates-4.8
Radial Blur-34.5
Lighting-3.3

Yes, I find those numbers slightly more believable. But it is still outstanding, since the single G5/1.6 still beats the Dual G4/1.25 in almost all the tests.

That said, the fact that these numbers are varying so wildly between similar machines throws into question whether this is even a remotely reliable benchmark.

synthetickittie

Aug 27, 2003, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by macrumors12345
Thanks for the DP 1.42 scores synthetickittie, that was exactly what we needed! All I can say is, WOW. The SINGLE G5/1.6 absolutely obliterates the Dual 1.42 G4 in virtually every test - in fact, the Dual 1.42 only wins in three tests, despite the fact that we are testing a DP machine against an SP machine!!! Sorry to ask, but are you sure these results are accurate? It's just incredible.

If they are accurate, this also indicates at least one of two things (and probably both). (1) PSBench is a *terrible* Photoshop benchmark (I have a lot of respect for the PPC970, but come on, it is not THAT much faster than the MPC 7455). (2) The Dual G5 will absolutely kill Xeon/P4/Athlon/Opteron on more comprehensive Photoshop benchmarks.

thats what I was thinking, somethings gotta be wrong with these tests since my computer got killed. I did everything the way they said to, with the setting all put to what they want. I actually did a few of the first test again to make sure it was right and they all came out almost exactly the same.

theRebel

Aug 27, 2003, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Ertai
So to sum up my previous post: A G5 1.6 runs the Photoshop test in 3 minutes, a Xeon 3.06/1 MB in 74.1 seconds, a Opteron 244 2x1.8 MHz in 71.2 seconds. That's not just a bit faster. That's roughly 2.5 times faster. Now do you think a 2x2 GHz G5 is 2.5 times faster than a G5 1.6? Dream on...

2 x 2.0Ghz = 4Ghz = 2.5 x 1.6Ghz

I know that a Dual 2Ghz is not actually equal to a 4Ghz system, but the Dual 2Ghz G5 PowerMac's PSBench numbers could very well be over twice as fast as the 1.6Ghz G5 PowerMac. The 2Ghz G5 is obviously faster than the 1.6Ghz G5 and the PowerMac has 2 of them. Plus the Dual 2Ghz system has slightly faster memory than the 1.6Ghz system.

Rocketman

Aug 27, 2003, 10:30 AM

I went to the chaosmint.com link and I found it interesting and notable that the slowest G5 Mac was generally on par with all those other wintel computers including MP computers and 3.06 Ghz computers in Photoshop tests.

This indicates that the bandwidth and pipelining of the G5/Apple hardware is notably fast and as chip speed, and driver and software optimizations are added, there is actually a good prospect for a change, of Apple actually surpassing Wintel in a visible and indisputable way.

Good job Steve Jobs.

Rocketman

macrumors12345

Aug 27, 2003, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Ertai

And by the way: this isn't some freaking PC-benchmark. This is Photoshop. This is Apple homeland. Remember Photoshop?

It's PSBench, not "Photoshop." It is a Photoshop script that runs a very narrow subset of filters within Photoshop. I'm not sure who came up with it, but no self respecting graphic design artist would use it to test the overall performance of Photoshop. Honestly, I wouldn't trust Apple's Photoshop benchmark too much, but even it is a far more comprehensive benchmark than PSBench (they at least run about 35 unique filters/actions - PSBench only runs 15 unique filters/actions), which says a lot.

twinturbo

Aug 27, 2003, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by hvfsl
In the original article it said that the 1.6Ghz G5 is about the same as a Athlon XP2400. Well the Athlon XP 2400 is clocked at around 1.7Ghz with a 266Mhz bus, so this does not look so good for the G5.

Over on Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=48409524&m=7760969205&p=34) there's a discussion going on right now, and actually the 1.6G5 that's been benchmarked, using a normalized score system, is faster than the 2.6Ghz P4. That DOES look good for the G5.

Mav451

Aug 27, 2003, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by macrumors12345
Because the Opteron is quite similar to the Athlon but with four key advantages: better floating point performance, 64-bit instructions, better memory bandwidth, and SSE2 support. Of those four advantages, only the last two are even relevant for Photoshop, and they probably will not be enough to offset the Xeon's HT advantage.

Regarding the benchmarks you posted, I will admit that the Opteron performed better than I expected. Unfortunately, since they only give the aggregate score (of what appears to be a PSBench run, from comparing the Athlon MP 2200 times to Ace's Athlon MP 2200 times), we have no idea how the Opteron and the Xeon actually compare to each other - all we are doing is comparing four filters (accent edges, pointillaze, water color, and radial blur). For the record, I doubt that the GamePC website was being dishonest when they gave the aggregate PSBench score - they probably just do not understand that the aggregate score is not meaningful for PSBench (which is understandable since they area gaming site, not a graphic design site).

The strange thing is that the PSBench aggregate score seems to be heavily memory constrained - that is partially why the Opteron is doing much better than the Athlon and the Xeon/3.06 1 MB does much better than the Xeon/3.06. But the G5/1.6 actually has the fastest memory subsystem of all the system's in Ace's test, so why doesn't it *really* clean up? Possibly cache is more important than memory bandwidth in this test (the Xeon 1 MB and the Opteron both have big caches), or possibly some key PSBench filters have not yet been optimized for the G5. It would be very helpful if we could actually see some detailed, consistent G4 PSBench scores, but those have yet to appear.

Incidentally, I did not say I was "so sure" the Xeon would beat the Opteron. I said that I would be quite surprised if the Opteron won in Photoshop. And I will still be surprised if the Opteron wins in Photoshop. What I am SURE of is that the Opteron will not beat the Dual G5 in Photoshop. You can bet money on that. (and in case it was unclear, getting a high aggregate score in PSBench does not constitute "winning", anymore than winning in an Apple run benchmark at WWDC constitutes "winning" - at a very minimum you need to win a clear majority of the subtests).

Well i already know that the G5 and pretty much any kind of Apple hardware (G4) has always been heavily optimized for photoshop. So i know that even without these specific optimizations, that while the Opteron will be competitive, the G5 will (and it better) win out simply b/c it is an Apple computer.

I can still remember back when the G4 was released how they described the G4 slaughtering pentiums. The funny part is that i was already using AMD processors which were slaughtering pentiums in their own right. Pentiums in the socket 370 and 423 never really caught up with AMD's socket 462 until the northwood came out (early 2002).

If the G4/G5 didn't outperform their respective competing intel/amd chips in photoshop than Apple would have ALOT less to present in its keynote presentation :)

macrumors12345

Aug 27, 2003, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by twinturbo
Over on Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=48409524&m=7760969205&p=34) there's a discussion going on right now, and actually the 1.6G5 that's been benchmarked, using a normalized score system, is faster than the 2.6Ghz P4. That DOES look good for the G5.

Yes, the normalized score system obviously gives a substantially more accurate measure of the G5's Photoshop performance. And if you look at one of the tables they posted, you will see one reason why - the vast majority of the weight in the PSBench aggregate score is from filters that do not use Altivec (even though 67% of the filters do use Altivec).

macrumors12345

Aug 27, 2003, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Mav451
Well i already know that the G5 and pretty much any kind of Apple hardware (G4) has always been heavily optimized for photoshop.

Yes. BUT, it is NOT heavily optimized for PSBench. As I posted above, it turns out that a vast majority of the weight in the PSBench aggregate score is from filters that do NOT use Altivec. So when you compare PSBench aggregate scores, you are comparing on a task which does not use much Altivec or floating point - primarily just scalar integer calculations. In other words, this is actually the WEAKEST scenario for the G5, since its comparitive advantage is in fp and vector ops (not scalar integer ops). Just something you should keep in mind.

If the G4/G5 didn't outperform their respective competing intel/amd chips in photoshop than Apple would have ALOT less to present in its keynote presentation

Indeed! And trust me, it will outperform in Photoshop.

mspock

Aug 27, 2003, 11:15 AM

I juste read this on Barefeats.com Things are getting better and better !

8/27/03 -- I received a report from a new G5 owner running both Jaguar (10.2.7) and Panther (10.3) versions of OS X. In the tests he ran for me, Panther was up to 41% faster. Details soon.

I usually speak french, so sorry for my bad english

---------------------------
Dell 2,5 ghz 512 rambus, (nobody's perfect)
planning to buy a g5 macintosh next year, tired of XP!!!

Mav451

Aug 27, 2003, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by macrumors12345
Yes. BUT, it is NOT heavily optimized for PSBench. As I posted above, it turns out that a vast majority of the weight in the PSBench aggregate score is from filters that do NOT use Altivec. So when you compare PSBench aggregate scores, you are comparing on a task which does not use much Altivec or floating point - primarily just scalar integer calculations. In other words, this is actually the WEAKEST scenario for the G5, since its comparitive advantage is in fp and vector ops (not scalar integer ops). Just something you should keep in mind.

Indeed! And trust me, it will outperform in Photoshop.

Then all the more power to you. If this is indeed the "weakest" scenario, then it is a good sign.

Btw, a question to everyone out there: If anyone has an Opteron system, perhaps they could run these same filter tests as welll? I'd be interested in seeing those results.

In the same sense, i'd like to see a more contemporary comparison from the Intel/AMD side as well--use the a7n8x rev2.0 chipset instead of the 9 month old rev1.04. Use ddr400 instead of ddr333.

With intel, i'd like to see how the 2.8 and 3.0C's do on the 875 chipset versus the old granite bay. Of course, also using ddr400 that's actually RUNNING @ ddr400 (in Ace's test, they were indeed using pc3200, but running it at a crippled ddr266, b/c of chipset limitations on the 845)

pilotgi

Aug 27, 2003, 11:37 AM

According to the Register, a story posted last night shows new SPEC scores performed by VeriTest.

Look here (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/32498.html)

mspock

Aug 27, 2003, 11:58 AM

http://www.barefeats.com/#quick

Neotronik

Aug 27, 2003, 12:07 PM

Has anybody done any tests with Macromedia Fireworks?

arn

Aug 27, 2003, 12:12 PM

thread split

mustang_dvs

Aug 27, 2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by arn
thread split

Thanks Arn.

I really just wish someone would do a full-up test of a 1.6GHz G5 side-by-side with a 1.25GHz single G4 or a Dual 1.42GHz G4 (or both), in a controlled environment. I want to see the gains with a similar setup, the old high-end vs. the new low-end.

I don't know why, but so far these tests feel unreliable. :\

macrumors12345

Aug 27, 2003, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by Mav451
Then all the more power to you. If this is indeed the "weakest" scenario, then it is a good sign.

The true weakest scenario is focusing only on the filters that do not use Altivec at all (number 13, and numbers 16-20). Averaging the relative scores for these seven filters, the P4/2.8 is about 28% faster than the G5/1.6. In other words, a G5/1.6 is equivalent to a 2.2 Ghz P4 in the "worst case" scenario, at least in Photoshop (don't know if these filters have been at all optimized for the G5...I sort of doubt it since they use CW for Photoshop, and right now CodeWarrior doesn't even have an option to recompile for the PPC 970 core...so this might *really* be the worst case scenario for the G5, but I can't be certain). That is not bad...I was expecting the G5 to be roughly 50% faster than the P4 at a given clock speed in general, so 38% faster in a test that uses none of the G5's strengths is very respectable.

macrumors12345

Aug 27, 2003, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by mustang_dvs
Thanks Arn.

I don't know why, but so far these tests feel unreliable. :\

What, you mean because the scores are bouncing all over the place? (to date the PSBench tests have "proved" that a G4/1.25 is substantially faster than a G4/1.42 when running Photoshop) I'm sure that Rob over at BareFeats will indulge us as soon as he gets his hands on the Dual G5.

Mav451

Aug 27, 2003, 12:44 PM

8/27/03 -- The Dual G5 should easily beat the Dual Opteron 242 running Photoshop. In the GamePC article, the Dual 1.6Ghz Opteron ran Photoshop 29% faster than the Dual 2.4GHz Xeon. If you combine the results of our two Photoshop action files, the Dual 2Ghz G5 (without G5 plugin for Photoshop) is 44% faster than the Dual 2.4GHz Xeon. Ergo, the G5 should easily beat the Dual 1.6GHz Opteron. The Dual 2GHz Opteron might be another story. We'll be testing one in a few days.

It is funny that Barefeats based their comparison from an article that is nearly 3 months old (i.e 5/28/2003 vs. the newest review of the 244, on 8/26/2003). If you went to take a look at the more curent review (already posted this a few posts down):

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=opteron244&page=6)

of the opteron (244), then you will see that the dual 1.8 opterons (244) gets 71.2 seconds in the Pshop7.0 filter test.

By Barefeats logic, the dual 1.8Ghz Opteron would be 47% faster than the dual 2.4ghz Xeon (xeon time / opeteron time):

104.8sec/71.2 = 1.4719

Or essentially 47%.

I bring this up b/c the 242 is now considerably "low-end" with the 246's introduction earlier this month.

Considering that the 1.8ghz Opteron is now the "mid" level opteron and that it is "slightly" faster than the fastest Apple model (dual 2ghz G5), we will have to wait and see how the optimizations play out.

Cubeboy

Aug 27, 2003, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by macrumors12345
Please do not quote aggregate PSBench scores as a performance indicator. As I explained earlier, the aggregate scores are VERY heavily weighted towards just four filters, so they are not at all indicative of overall performance. It is like quoting RC5 scores to show how "fast" the G4 is compared to the P4 - it's just a single benchmark, so it's not meaningful.

If you want to scale, you should reduce the time of each benchmark by 20% and compare the two machines. I calculate that a SINGLE G5/2.0 would win in 9 or 10 of the 21 benchmarks then versus the P4/3.06 HT, so it would just fall short in PSBench. But don't worry, it will do even better in more comprehensive PS benchmarks.

When have I ever said I was going to use these as a performance indicator?

Whether or not those filters play a big role in the overall time is irrelevent. You simply can't choose to "see" what a particular CPU is faster at and what that CPU is slower at without considering the extent. Your win-lose perspective is too black and white to accurately compare either cpu, if the P4 beats the G5 slightly, it's considered a "win", if the G5 beats the P4 significantly, it's also considered a "win", there is nothing in the details and thats what I think the overall score offers. Just because alot of the time is spent on those four specific filters doesn't refute the validility of the time it took to actually finish with everything!

Now, you can argue that this benchmark as a whole doesn't represent a typical workload in Photoshop, that it consists of four "very heavily weighted" that probably aren't going to be seen in a typical workload but again thats not going to invalidate the overall score.

cuneglasus

Aug 27, 2003, 01:00 PM

cuneglasus

Aug 27, 2003, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by synthetickittie
Here are the results from my 1.42ghz dual g4 powermac (fw800), 2gb of ram, GeForce4 Ti 128mbs, running 10.2.6.

90 Degree Rotate-1.0
9 Degree Rotate-3.6
.9 Degree Rotate-7.4
1 Gaussian-5.5
3.7 Gaussian-6.7
85 Gaussian-8.1
Unsharp 50/1/0-5.3
Unsharp 50/3.7/0-10.1
Unsharp 50/10/5-7.9
Despeckle-5.5
RGB-CMYK-7.6
60% Reduction-2.3
LensFlare-9.9
Color Halftone-11.2
NTSC Color-10.8
Accent Edge-18.2
Pointilize-19.6
Watercolor-37.8
Polar Coordinates-8.4
Radial Blur-32.6
Lighting-7.6

There is something bad wrong with these scores.It is slower than a single 1.33 ghz G4 upgrade card. Check this out:
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/G4CARDS/giga_designs_125Ghz/index3.html

there are some psbench scores on the page above.

Beware of making bold assumptions based on ANY benchmark.I have yet to see one I would put faith in. In this case remember just hom many different filters and actions there are in photoshop-and many parameters can be changed for each.Choosing a different set of operations and a different file size will give vastly different results.So dont waste time saying the G5 looks to be as fast as some so and so clocked x86 processor based on this or any other bench. Such a statement will only apply to that small particular test and real world useage will say something different.

Bregalad

Aug 27, 2003, 01:18 PM

While I realize that 1.6GHz is the low end of the G5 chip, the 1.6GHz PowerMac G5 isn't a "low end" computer and it's not being compared to a "high end" P4 based computer. What makes a complete package high or low is its price. The AthlonXP 2400+ is definitely low end (roughly the price of an eMac) while the 3GHz P4 apparently costs the same as the 1.6GHz G5 making them both mid-range. The high end would be a dual Xeon versus a dual G5. We love our Macs, but let's be fair in our comparisons.

Mav451

Aug 27, 2003, 01:21 PM

Actually, the 2400+ is the last of the 266 fsb processors in the thoroughbred B line.

So, with that in mind, the 2400+ is rated at 2ghz. To be more exact, with the 133 fsb, mulitplied by 15, it is around 1995mhz, + or -.

Hardocp did a OC review on the processor back in september:
http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=MzUw

Now the 2500+ barton, on the other hand, is clocked at 1.83ghz. That may be where the confusion is. Additionally, the 2000+ model palomino is clocked at 1.67ghz.

stid

Aug 27, 2003, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by moped
-----------------------------------------------
Synthetickittie,

I don't know what happened to your 1.42 dual but my 1.25 dual
gave me the following result.

90 Degree Rotate-0.9
9 Degree Rotate-2.8
.9 Degree Rotate-2.6
1 Gaussian-0.7
3.7 Gaussian-2.3
85 Gaussian-3.3
Unsharp 50/1/0-1.2
Unsharp 50/3.7/0-2.7
Unsharp 50/10/5-3.2
Despeckle-0.8
RGB-CMYK-3.5
60% Reduction-0.6
LensFlare-5.9
Color Halftone-6.2
NTSC Color-7.3
Accent Edge-22.4
Pointilize-19.3
Watercolor-48.1
Polar Coordinates-4.8
Radial Blur-34.5
Lighting-3.3

It's nice to know that my G4 800 DP is the fastest mac to rotate 90°. :)

This are my result on PPCG4 800DP:

Rotate 90 0,8
Rotate 9 9,7
Rotate .9 8,8
Guassian 1 4,6
Guassian 3.73 7,9
Guassian 85 10,3
Unsharp 1 6,6
Unsharp 2 9,5
Unsharp 3 10
Despeckle 6,5
RGB CMY 8,9
Reduce 50 3
Lens 13
Color 14,4
NTSC 15,4
Accent 31,3
Pointillize 30
Water 67,2
Polar 11,9
Radial 52,5
Light 10

fourthtunz

Aug 27, 2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Bregalad
While I realize that 1.6GHz is the low end of the G5 chip, the 1.6GHz PowerMac G5 isn't a "low end" computer and it's not being compared to a "high end" P4 based computer. What makes a complete package high or low is its price. The AthlonXP 2400+ is definitely low end (roughly the price of an eMac) while the 3GHz P4 apparently costs the same as the 1.6GHz G5 making them both mid-range. The high end would be a dual Xeon versus a dual G5. We love our Macs, but let's be fair in our comparisons.

I agree but most people miss out on the fact that the Mac comes with far better apps and the full version of the os, which matters pricewise. But Macs also are very reliable, use better quality hardware and are easy to work on, something that doesn't show up in the numbers game. I also think OSX is the best os, in my opinion of course:D
daniel

jettredmont

Aug 27, 2003, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by theRebel
The price that I came up with was $2261 before the rebate and that did not include any FireWire and only had a basic CD-RW drive (no DVD capabilities at all; no read and no write). What did you take off the config in order to lower the price?

I looked back over my "Dell Config" and found that I had selected slower memory (512MB of DDR333, not DDR400 ... what a crappy ordering interface!). Still, changing to DDR400 brought it up to $2210 before rebate ... I'm not sure where your other $51 came from; I just used the default options except for CPU and memory going in (using the "Small Business" side of Dell's store, selected the left-most "Workstation" model to start from ...)

Also you should be aware that you can buy a 1.8Ghz G5 PowerMac with a CD-RW/DVD Combo drive for $2199 from the Apple Store. Thus, when you figure in that Dell also charges at least $75 for shipping (whereas the PowerMac ships for free), your Dell Workstation costs more than the 1.8Ghz PowerMac.

Absolutely. I wasn't hoping to begin a "Dell is cheaper than Apple" contest. Note first that the Dell only had 512MB of RAM, a smaller HD by half, and CD-RW only (although they give you the option of nixing that for $79 back ... which I personally would take since I've got four computers with DVD burners in my office already ...)

On the other hand, it's hard to compare memory quantitatively between Dell and Apple as OSX generally requires much more memory to operate than Windows (due to its windowing server ... which has nice benefits; I'm not complaining! But still, a 512MB P4 system is relatively spacious for development work whereas a 512MB OSX machine is constantly running out of physical RAM ...)

Were I ordering a 1.8GHz G5 I would be ordering one with at least 1GB RAM, which adds $250 to the price.

On the other hand, ordering the Dell, I'd have gone for a larger HD (80GB on the Dell by default, not 160GB as on the G5) ... which would add $100 (160 isn't an option with Dell; only 120GB ... why? No idea!).

And, no, I can't seem to find the OSX option on the Dell web site either. You might have to call in and request that special :)

jettredmont

Aug 27, 2003, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by theRebel
How do you figure the single 1.6Ghz G5 PowerMac with a slower bus, slower RAM, etc, to be 80% of the speed of a Dual 2Ghz PowerMac?

If you kept a single proc, I could see his point.

Everything in the 1.6GHz system is 20% slower than a theoretical single 2.0GHz G5 machine. The buses and memory are scaled (more or less) linearly with the CPU speed. Granted, PCI vs PCI-X might make a difference, but not on these benchmarks. On the other hand, HDD access is likely to be just as fast on the 1.6GHz G5 as on the dual 2.0's.

However, you are quite correct: throw in dual CPUs each with their own FSB, and ... well, we'll have to see those particular benchmarks when they come out.

BTW, the difference between February's P4 and today's P4 is about 5-10% generally on benchmarks. I expect a significantly larger benchmarking difference between the 1.6 and 2x2.0 GHz G5's!

jettredmont

Aug 27, 2003, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by macrumors12345
That said, the fact that these numbers are varying so wildly between similar machines throws into question whether this is even a remotely reliable benchmark.

The numbers vary wildly between multiple runs of the SAME machine! You have to run the benchmark 5-10 times, throw out outliers, and average the rest to get reproducible and meaningful results!

jettredmont

Aug 27, 2003, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by theRebel
2 x 2.0Ghz = 4Ghz = 2.5 x 1.6Ghz

I know that a Dual 2Ghz is not actually equal to a 4Ghz system, but the Dual 2Ghz G5 PowerMac's PSBench numbers could very well be over twice as fast as the 1.6Ghz G5 PowerMac. The 2Ghz G5 is obviously faster than the 1.6Ghz G5 and the PowerMac has 2 of them. Plus the Dual 2Ghz system has slightly faster memory than the 1.6Ghz system.

Look at the posted results again.

How many of them improved between a single Athlon and dual Athlons? Not all that many, I'm afraid.

PSBench is not multiple-proc friendly.

macrumors12345

Aug 27, 2003, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Cubeboy
Whether or not those filters play a big role in the overall time is irrelevent. You simply can't choose to "see" what a particular CPU is faster at and what that CPU is slower at without considering the extent. Your win-lose perspective is too black and white to accurately compare either cpu, if the P4 beats the G5 slightly, it's considered a "win", if the G5 beats the P4 significantly, it's also considered a "win", there is nothing in the details and thats what I think the overall score offers.

I agree. There is in fact no perfect methodology unless you know exactly how much time you will be spending in each filter when you use Photoshop. I am simply pointing out that comparing wins vs. losses is a much better (though still very imperfect) test of "overall" performance.

Just because alot of the time is spent on those four specific filters doesn't refute the validility of the time it took to actually finish with everything!

It invalidates it as a meaningful test of general Photoshop performance. It does not invalidate it as a meaningful test of those 4 specific filters.

macrumors12345

Aug 27, 2003, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by jettredmont
The numbers vary wildly between multiple runs of the SAME machine! You have to run the benchmark 5-10 times, throw out outliers, and average the rest to get reproducible and meaningful results!

My point exactly!

jettredmont

Aug 27, 2003, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Bregalad
While I realize that 1.6GHz is the low end of the G5 chip, the 1.6GHz PowerMac G5 isn't a "low end" computer and it's not being compared to a "high end" P4 based computer. What makes a complete package high or low is its price. The AthlonXP 2400+ is definitely low end (roughly the price of an eMac) while the 3GHz P4 apparently costs the same as the 1.6GHz G5 making them both mid-range. The high end would be a dual Xeon versus a dual G5. We love our Macs, but let's be fair in our comparisons.

As pointed out by others, the 3.0 GHz P4 and 1.8 GHz G5 are closer in terms of cost than the 3.0GHz P4 and 1.6GHz G5.

eatme8888

Aug 27, 2003, 06:15 PM

Those PCGaming Opteron Photoshop numbers don't tell us which filters they are using, nor which file they are using.

If we don't know that info, those numbers are meaningless when compared to the 50 meg file PSBench7 numbers.

Cubeboy

Aug 27, 2003, 08:57 PM

Macrumors12345:

Looking back, I see your point, so I'm going to do another comparison which compares the CPUs in terms of how they perform in each filter.

Filter--------------P4---G5----Result
Rotate 90---------0.2---0.7---P4:250% faster
Rotate 09---------2.7---2.8---P4:4% faster
Rotate 0.9--------2.5---2.7---P4:8% faster
Gaussian Blur 01---0.8---0.7---G5:14% faster
Gaussian Blur 3.7--2.0---2.4---P4:20% faster
Gaussian Blur 85---2.3---3.4---P4:48% faster
Unsharp 50/1/0/---0.9---1.2---P4:33% faster
Unsharp 50/3/7/0--2.1---2.9---P4:38% faster
Unsharp 50/10/5---2.2---3.5---P4:59% faster
Despeckle---------2.2---0.8---G5:175% faster
RGB CYMK---------7.3---4.2---G5:74% faster
Reduce60---------0.9---0.8---G5:13% faster
Lens Flare---------2.5---6.1---P4:144% faster
Color Half-Tone----2.2---4.3---P4:95% faster
NTSC Colors-------2.4---4.2---P4:75% faster
Accented Edge----10.9--16.3--P4:50% faster
Pointillize----------12.1--25.0--P4:107% faster
WaterColor--------26.4--35.7--P4:35% faster
Polar Coordinates--7.0---5.0---G5:40% faster
Radial Blur---------33.1--53.9--P4:62.8% faster
Lighting Effects----1.9---3.5---P4:84% faster

Total filters won by 3.0 GHz P4: 16/21
Total filters won by 1.6 GHz G5: 05/21

filters 3 Ghz P4 outperformed 1.6 GHz G5 by 10%+: 14/16
filters 1.6 GHz G5 outperformed 3 Ghz P4 by 10%+: 4/5

filters 3 GHz P4 outperformed 1.6 GHz G5 by 25%+: 13/16
filters 1.6 GHz G5 outperformed 3 GHz P4 by 25%+ : 3/5

filters 3 GHz P4 outperformed 1.6 GHz G5 by 50%+: 9/16
filters 1.6 GHz G5 outperformed 3 GHz P4 by 50%+: 2/5

Assuming linear scaling (25% faster in every filter) from the 1.6 GHz G5 to the 2 GHz G5, it is fairly reasonable to say that a single 2 GHz G5 will outperform the Pentium 4 in any filter in which the Pentium 4 did not perform 25% better than the 1.6 GHz G5.

Speculation:

Total filters won by 2.0 GHz G5: 8/21
Total filters won by 3.0 GHz P4: 13/21

filters 2 GHz G5 outperformed 3 GHz P4 by 10%+: 7/8
filters 3 GHz P4 outperformed 2 GHz G5 by 10%+: 11/13

filters 2 GHz G5 outperformed 3 GHz P4 by 25%+: 5/8
filters 3 GHz P4 outperformed 2 GHz G5 by 25%+: 8/13

filters 2 GHz G5 outperformed 3 GHz P4 by 50%+: 3/8
filters 3 GHz P4 outperformed 2 GHz G5 by 50%+: 5/13

adamfilip

Aug 27, 2003, 09:12 PM

wow .. someone has to much time on their hands.. not that i dont appreciate the effort!

Cubeboy

Aug 27, 2003, 09:30 PM

Exactly how much a 3 GHz Pentium 4 desktop would cost would depend largely on the other components, these days, you can configure a computer with the top of the line processor and still price it significantly cheaper than a high end/midrange desktop.

Dell Dimension 4600:
Pentium 4 3.2 GHz
512 MB Dual Channel DDR-400
80 GB Ultra ATA/100 HD
48x CDROM
48x CD-RW (Free second slot)
Basic Mouse+Keyboard
No Monitor
Radeon 9800
Integrated Sound Card
Altec Lansing ADA215 Speakers
Windows XP Home Edition (bleh)
WordPerfect Productivity Pack
56K Data/Fax Modem

Total Price: $1528

Dell Dimension 8300:
Pentium 4 3.2 GHz
512 MB Dual Channel DDR-400
200 GB Ultra ATA/100 HD w/Databurst Cache
16X Max DVD-ROM
4x DVD+RW/+R Drive w/CD-RW (savings)
Basic Mouse/Keyboard
No Monitor
Radeon 9800 Pro
SoundBlaster Live! 5.1 Digital Sound Card
Harman Kardon HK-395 Speakers with Subwoofer
Windows XP Professional
Word Perfect Office 11
56K Data/Fax Modem
Integrated Intel PRO 10/100 Ethernet

Total Price: $2487

Cubeboy

Aug 27, 2003, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by adamfilip
wow .. someone has to much time on their hands.. not that i dont appreciate the effort!

What can I say? It's about 10:30 here and theres nothing good on TV. :D

rjwill246

Aug 27, 2003, 10:34 PM

I got to play with one today at CompUSA. First off, there is no computer that I have seen before made like this one. The finish is extraordinary. Lots of Wintel folks came up, touched it, said wow and started asking questions of the Apple folks in that section of the store. Internally, it is, again, distinctive: solid, curved lines on the airflow deflectors, NO WIRES or crappy cables to be seen (except at the very bottom of the casing). This is made like a German scientific instrument or a medical instrument... One problem: the Superdrive door drops down with a real snap! and the tray pops out... or at least it should but at first the tray got stuck in the drive aperture. this was fixed by actually pushing downwards on the whole drive and it suddenly clicked into place... this dislodgement may have been due to shipping etc... who knows?.. It was easily fixed. Overall sense of performance? Can't tell. Seemed as good as my dual 1Gig G4 machine but then again, I wasn't benchmarking. Most things launched quickly. One bounce two bounce... oh iDVD was 6 bounces but I don't use it so I have no reference point for that app.
Anyway I was impressed that Apple has produced a machine of exemplary PHYSICAL qualities... After looking at the Sonys, Dells and HPs... well, they look like cheap plastic and fake metal... the nouveau American car!! So stunningly........... well, let's drop that one.

Mav451

Aug 27, 2003, 10:48 PM

where's your compusa? I don't think there's any at Maryland yet...so if you're west coast, then you probably get them earlier--so i guess a few more weeks over here then.

rjwill246

Aug 27, 2003, 10:57 PM

This one is in Reno NV. They have a superb Apple section (thank you Sheila and Nate!) and Apple is thriving here in the upper portions of the Silver State... now back 'home'-- in OZ, it's not as good but even there, under new management Apple is making some progress... it just has to keep going and not lose direction as it has done before. Australia deserves better... they are, after all, decent folk!

dragula53

Aug 27, 2003, 11:13 PM

some of those %'s are such low numbers, a 250% difference in speed is pointless..

.2 seconds vs .4 seconds, etc.

total time for the test would be a more accurate judge, imho.

I am just not motivated enough to even try and compare.

heh

Shaktai

Aug 27, 2003, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by eatme8888
Those PCGaming Opteron Photoshop numbers don't tell us which filters they are using, nor which file they are using.

If we don't know that info, those numbers are meaningless when compared to the 50 meg file PSBench7 numbers.

I was beginning to wonder if anyone was going to catch on to that. :rolleyes:

Mav451

Aug 27, 2003, 11:47 PM

Shaktai: I posted those numbers/urls ONLY because barefeats included some of those numbers in its news bulletin earlier today.

They say that "the dual 2ghz G5 (without G5 plugin for Photoshop) is 44% faster than the Dual 2.4GHz Xeon.

However, they base their comparisons on a low-end model, the 242, which was reviewed 3 months ago.

At the SAME site, barefeats.com NEGLECTS to bring up a review made yesterday, 8/26/2003 of the faster 244 opteron model.

Again, as i had said before, the 244, with Barefeats' logic is 47% faster than the dual 2.4ghz xeon. All of a sudden, because the dual 2ghz G5 beats the 242, the

"G5 should easily beat the Dual 1.6GHz Opteron. The Dual 2GHz Opteron might be another story."

They put forth a confusing blanket statement that b/c a low-mid range 242 is beaten by the 2ghz G5 (w/o plugin :) ), that the "G5" (which one) easily beats the opterons. They don't emphasize that they are comparing the 2ghz G5's results to those of the 1.6 opteron!

Nonetheless, they admit that the dual 2ghz opteron will be a different story--indeed it should :)

Analog Kid

Aug 28, 2003, 02:42 AM

Originally posted by Cubeboy
Macrumors12345:
Looking back, I see your point, so I'm going to do another comparison which compares the CPUs in terms of how they perform in each filter.

Wow, thanks for the analysis! That was a welcome sight!

I'd still really like to see a comparison of those results with the results of the G5 w/o plugin to see which of those are optimized.

Anyone care to speculate what causes each unit to perform so much better on certain tests?

Rotate 90 is largely a memory op so maybe the caching on the P4 helped it there? It can't fit the whole image in cache, but if the filter is designed well it could exploit it pretty well.

Rotate .9 is largely a floating point op, so the G5 caught up? We know the P4 FPU is weak.

I'd expect these to have been optimized.

What's up with the divergence in the gausian blur numbers? Does the larger radius blow the G5 L2 cache?

RGB-CMYK sounds floating point with a small memory footprint (almost a register op)-- advantage G5?

Lens flair also sounds like a memory user-- advantage P4?

I know so very little about how most of the operations work, that all I can hope to do is spark someone elses interest and get real information.

I am curious though whether the lack of an L3 cache hurts the G5, even with the fat pipe to main memory.

The duals might help a bit here since they can snoop each other's L2 caches.

For the case of upoptimized ops, it sounds like there are common G4 Altivec ops that cause the G5 to stick (unfortunate artifact of switching chip vendors and a potential problem for compatibility)-- so that might explain why some operations seem to give such a huge advantage to the P4.

I think any op that spun up the disk is invalid, but we don't know which those were...

Is there anyone out there who has designed filters like these?

eatme8888

Aug 28, 2003, 11:26 AM

Maybe it will, maybe it won't.

This benchmark shows the dual 1.8 Opteron not doing too well:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030422/opteron-23.html#3drendering

We need to know what kind of performance increase you get for each Mhz in the Opteron before we can speculate how much faster a dual 2 Ghz Opteron would be. For example, the Xeon is at a point where it gets very, very, very little actual performance increase with every step in Mhz. The dual 3.2 Ghz Xeon will be slightly faster than the dual 3.06. The difference is so small, people who know better are just going to save their money and by the less expensive processors.

Right now, there is a 4 gig limit on the BOXX dual Opteron, because it comes with Windows XP Pro. If/when MS comes out with a special Windows for the 64 bit aspect of those AMD processors, then it can have more memory. The only 64 bit Windows available today starts out at $2,999, just for the OS.

And when you start comparing the prices of these systems, the G5 is the least expensive.

I say wait on pronouncing a speed king until the G5s are shipping with Panther and the Opteron is out with an optimized Windows. The Xeon is dead. It might make it to 5.1 Ghz at the end of the Prescott's run, yet it will have to be 5.1 Ghz this time next year to keep up with the 3 Ghz IBM 980 that is being prototyped today, and proclaimed to be shipping next year by Steve Jobs and IBM last June. The G5 has legs, folks, and in a year, there won't be a need to nitpick .2 seconds for gaussian blur and .3 seconds for rotate...

The IBM roadmap has the G5 going to 10 Ghz by 2006. Damn, Longhorn is going to be out in 2005/6. We'll have two more updates of OS X by then, and a G5 that's between 7-10 Ghz.

The Opteron is very nice, for an X86 processor, but it's still X86 and weighted down with all that baggage that comes with X86.

Resistance is futile. :)