PDA

View Full Version : PowerMac G5 performance, and games


jamesa
Sep 7, 2003, 06:23 AM
Hi there,

My first post on these forums...! :)

What's brought me out of lurker mode is that there's something I've been dying to know about the new G5s but nobody has really answered.

How does it go at games?

I'm wondering how much a difference the faster bus and things like PCI-X make to the performance for gaming. They're surely going to be more competitive, but by how much...

If anybody could post FPS for any games - or if you have none, maybe download something like America's Army (ftp://armyops:ftp@guinness.devrandom.net:7000/armyops190-mac.dmg.bz2 - warning, big link).

If you could post what games you've tried, their FPS, and your setup (eg dualie with Radeon 9800 and 512Mb RAM) I'd be most grateful :D

-- james

zen
Sep 7, 2003, 06:06 PM
What does PCI-X have to do with gaming performance?

adamfilip
Sep 7, 2003, 08:05 PM
i agree pci-x will have no effect on gaming
since games are centered around the video card on AGP 8x and CPU and Ram.

it should do well

but PCI-X will be used in specialty cards in video editing/compression/cature and storage and other niche market cards that need the bandwidth

jamesa
Sep 8, 2003, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by zen
What does PCI-X have to do with gaming performance?

heh, good point :) I knew something down on the PCI bus had sped up the video card, just forgot it was the doubling of AGP speed as opposed to PCI-X.

My mistake. ;)

Anyone with any chance to run some games on their new Aluminium behemoths?

-- james

jamesa
Sep 9, 2003, 05:42 AM
anyone?

BIGgui_X_
Sep 9, 2003, 01:00 PM
exaclty waiting for the same thing here !
Hoping someone will EVEr install a game on his G5

cc bcc
Sep 9, 2003, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by jamesa
heh, good point :) I knew something down on the PCI bus had sped up the video card, just forgot it was the doubling of AGP speed as opposed to PCI-X.

My mistake. ;)

Anyone with any chance to run some games on their new Aluminium behemoths?

-- james

My Aluminium behemoth is still nowhere to be seen arrrghh! Apple I'm ready now, you can bring it now, you did after all charge me almost 2 months ago..

Santiago
Sep 9, 2003, 02:07 PM
I played WarCraft III on a dual 2.0 G5 with a 23" LCD back at WWDC, and it totally freaking ruled. Completely smooth scrolling even during huge battles. We also tried stunts like opening six different ~100 MB movie trailers, starting them all playing, and then dragging around a semi-transparent terminal window running "top -u". Not a stutter...

Dont Hurt Me
Sep 9, 2003, 02:22 PM
the answer to the original question is all g5's will be great gamers,but i would go for the 9800 in the machines. fx5200 isnt bad but hardcore gamers will want those extra frame rates & goodies. and if you cant afford it the 9600 for 50 more bucks is a step up from the fx5200.

jamesa
Sep 11, 2003, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
the answer to the original question is all g5's will be great gamers,but i would go for the 9800 in the machines. fx5200 isnt bad but hardcore gamers will want those extra frame rates & goodies. and if you cant afford it the 9600 for 50 more bucks is a step up from the fx5200.

Good advice...
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1261767,00.asp

Anyone else managed to get some games going on their G5 yet?

-- james

irmongoose
Sep 11, 2003, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by jamesa
Anyone else managed to get some games going on their G5 yet?


Okay, let's make this clear: Almost no one has even gotten their G5 yet, much less have access or the privilege to install a game on it (the only ones who have gotten it are universities, so of course no games on those machines).



irmongoose

AngryAngel
Sep 11, 2003, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by irmongoose
Okay, let's make this clear: Almost no one has even gotten their G5 yet, much less have access or the privilege to install a game on it (the only ones who have gotten it are universities, so of course no games on those machines).

The G5's have been shipping slowly for a good few weeks now. Many have gone to regular consumers. Many University ones will have games installed on them too :-)

irmongoose
Sep 11, 2003, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by AngryAngel
The G5's have been shipping slowly for a good few weeks now. Many have gone to regular consumers. Many University ones will have games installed on them too :-)

Wait a minute, are we talking about now? As in 9/11/2003? Sorry, it's just that I was stuck at two years ago... oh, so very very tragic. Hmm...

Did I miss something?



irmongoose

P-Worm
Sep 11, 2003, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by jamesa
If anybody could post FPS for any games - or if you have none, maybe download something like America's Army (ftp://armyops:ftp@guinness.devrandom.net:7000/armyops190-mac.dmg.bz2 - warning, big link).

Dang1 How big is this thing? I'm at 150 MB now and it still doesn't know how far I have to go!

P-Worm

ChronoIMG
Sep 11, 2003, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by P-Worm
Dang1 How big is this thing? I'm at 150 MB now and it still doesn't know how far I have to go!

P-Worm
Around 600MBs :)

tomf87
Sep 11, 2003, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Santiago
I played WarCraft III on a dual 2.0 G5 with a 23" LCD back at WWDC, and it totally freaking ruled. Completely smooth scrolling even during huge battles. We also tried stunts like opening six different ~100 MB movie trailers, starting them all playing, and then dragging around a semi-transparent terminal window running "top -u". Not a stutter...

It's good to note that it has that much power, but in reality I can't see where a home user needs that much power. Don't get me wrong, I love all the power as much as the next guy, but I can't understand, why a person would spend $1200 more for a dual G5 when a dual G4 would suffice for CPU power and upgrade their video card.

And, most games will remain 32-bit, because 64-bit isn't at the desktop in enough quantities to justify that game developers start producing 64-bit games. Even still, the OS isn't fully 64-bit and until that happens, there definitely won't be any 64-bit software for it.

AngryAngel
Sep 11, 2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by tomf87
And, most games will remain 32-bit, because 64-bit isn't at the desktop in enough quantities to justify that game developers start producing 64-bit games.

...as well as the fact that 64-bit games would be no faster, and probably slower.

Originally posted by tomf87
Even still, the OS isn't fully 64-bit and until that happens, there definitely won't be any 64-bit software for it.

...oh, so no-one made PPC native Apps before the OS was? As I recall, it took a long time before even the majority of the system was PPC code, and I think some of OS 9 is still in 680x0 code.

OS 10.2.7 has the enhancements required to address more than 4GB RAM, and that is the only major thing that 64-bits do for us at the moment, until there is a requirement for 64-bit integer calculations in desktop apps.

Optimising for other achetectural changes (e.g. altivec) will give big boosts, though this has nothing to do with the G5 being 64-bit.

G5orbust
Sep 11, 2003, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by AngryAngel
...as well as the fact that 64-bit games would be no faster, and probably slower.



...oh, so no-one made PPC native Apps before the OS was? As I recall, it took a long time before even the majority of the system was PPC code, and I think some of OS 9 is still in 680x0 code.

OS 10.2.7 has the enhancements required to address more than 4GB RAM, and that is the only major thing that 64-bits do for us at the moment, until there is a requirement for 64-bit integer calculations in desktop apps.

Optimising for other achetectural changes (e.g. altivec) will give big boosts, though this has nothing to do with the G5 being 64-bit.

Unreal Tounament 2004 is a 64Bit game, though Im not exactly sure when the mac release will be.
---------------------------
Well, actually, the G5 has, I believe, a 42bit memory address, so it is not true that the G5, being 64 bit, can theoretically address the huge amount (up into the exabyte amounts) of RAM( though 42 bit goes up way into the terabytes, so I dont think it is a problem right now)

Bluefusion
Sep 11, 2003, 06:11 PM
42-bit??

42?

Steve's trying to tell us something!

The answer to "Life, the Universe, and Everything..." is, of course, 42... :)

job
Sep 11, 2003, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by tomf87
It's good to note that it has that much power, but in reality I can't see where a home user needs that much power. Don't get me wrong, I love all the power as much as the next guy, but I can't understand, why a person would spend $1200 more for a dual G5 when a dual G4 would suffice for CPU power and upgrade their video card.

It's all about the bus speed.

An 800Mhz bus will be far more beneficial than the anemic 167Mhz bus found on all current G4s. Games will finally be able to utilize the maximum bandwidth of the DDR SDRAM. Sure, the CPU and GPU of a G4 tower may be fine, but it doesn't matter as long as it is constrained by a slow bus.

voyagerd
Sep 11, 2003, 06:59 PM
I will post FPS for games such as X-Plane, Elite Force, Elite Force 2, Medal of Honor, Medal of Honor: Spearhead, Unreal Tournament 2003, Sim City 4, F/A-18 Hornet: Opertion Iraqi Freedom, Master of Orion 3, WarBirds, Wolfenstein, Ghost Recon, and Max Payne.

THAT IS, when I get my 1.8 GHz G5 with a Radeon 9800 Pro.

WHICH I ORDERED IN EARLY JULY THROUGH THE EDUCATION STORE.

My ORIGINAL ship date was 09/02/03

BUT, for no apparent reason, they DELAYED it a whole month to 09/29/03.

jamesa
Sep 12, 2003, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by AngryAngel
...as well as the fact that 64-bit games would be no faster, and probably slower.


Check out this thread over at Ars Tech:
http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=9080959175&p=1

The long and short of it, if you don't want to go through the 13 pages; poorly written code runs way better on the G5 than on the G4. Furthermore, most games are ports, and by their nature are not going to be well written pieces of software.

-- james

jamesa
Sep 12, 2003, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by voyagerd
I will post FPS for games such as X-Plane, Elite Force, Elite Force 2, Medal of Honor, Medal of Honor: Spearhead, Unreal Tournament 2003, Sim City 4, F/A-18 Hornet: Opertion Iraqi Freedom, Master of Orion 3, WarBirds, Wolfenstein, Ghost Recon, and Max Payne.

THAT IS, when I get my 1.8 GHz G5 with a Radeon 9800 Pro.

WHICH I ORDERED IN EARLY JULY THROUGH THE EDUCATION STORE.

My ORIGINAL ship date was 09/02/03

BUT, for no apparent reason, they DELAYED it a whole month to 09/29/03.

voyagerd, I feel your pain :)

Apple have two ship dates, apparently - the one that is displayed is either the "worst case" or "most likely case"; if you ring Apple up, ask them for the "best case" ship date (it's actually termed something like "as soon as", I think). That's the best time the computer could be delivered.

It :mad: me that Apple haven't yet managed to get their inventory system to a stage where it's relatively accurate for the customer.

-- james

000111one111000
Sep 12, 2003, 04:22 AM
My brother just got his G5 earlier today. It's a 1.8 GHz model with 512 MB RAM.

I forgot to check which video card it has, but I'll check it tomorrow when I go to set up his net connection. I'm assuming it's the fx5200 though.

If you want though, give me a list of things to do, and I'll test em out.

Games are pretty much a no go though, unless I download America's Army. The only games I own are the original Quake 3 Arena and Unreal Tournament.

But any other apps or actions you want me to test, just let me know, and I'll do my best to test it all.

enoch

hvfsl
Sep 12, 2003, 04:56 AM
This website has info on different Macs that people have done gaming benchmarks on. http://forums.xlr8yourmac.com/fpsdb/fpsdb.lasso

jamesa
Sep 12, 2003, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by 000111one111000
My brother just got his G5 earlier today. It's a 1.8 GHz model with 512 MB RAM.

I forgot to check which video card it has, but I'll check it tomorrow when I go to set up his net connection. I'm assuming it's the fx5200 though.

If you want though, give me a list of things to do, and I'll test em out.

Games are pretty much a no go though, unless I download America's Army. The only games I own are the original Quake 3 Arena and Unreal Tournament.

But any other apps or actions you want me to test, just let me know, and I'll do my best to test it all.

enoch

Q3:A, UT and AA are all great if you get a chance... also, see if you can find out what the video card is!

thanks ;)

-- james

000111one111000
Sep 12, 2003, 06:50 AM
Are the OS X versions of Q3A and UT any good? I haven't tried them in forever, but if I remember correctly, they weren't all that great. Especially the UT one. If I remember though, I'll try them out.

enoch

jamesa
Sep 12, 2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by 000111one111000
Are the OS X versions of Q3A and UT any good? I haven't tried them in forever, but if I remember correctly, they weren't all that great. Especially the UT one. If I remember though, I'll try them out.

enoch

Good point... forgot entirely about that.

Q3:A should be fine, it's UT that'll be the problem. The guy that is porting UT:2003 is also having a stab at UT though in his spare time.

-- james

bousozoku
Sep 12, 2003, 12:47 PM
MacWorld tested the G5s with Q3A 1.30b5 so the latest 1.32 should be great since it was much more reliable and quick.

I still don't have any issues (that weren't on Westlake's list) with the UT preview for Mac OS X, but knowing that others are makes me wonder about it running decently on a G5.

jamesa
Sep 15, 2003, 04:50 AM
Originally posted by bousozoku
MacWorld tested the G5s with Q3A 1.30b5 so the latest 1.32 should be great since it was much more reliable and quick.

I still don't have any issues (that weren't on Westlake's list) with the UT preview for Mac OS X, but knowing that others are makes me wonder about it running decently on a G5.

According to MacWorld (http://www.macworld.com/2003/09/reviews/macworldlabfirstg5testresults/):

Quake 3 1.30b5

G5 Dual 2ghz: 268.5 FPS
G5 1.8ghz: 133
G5 1.6ghz: 117.4
G4 Dual 1.42ghz: 134.1
G4 1ghz: 75.6

Anyone else tested anything?

-- james

jamesa
Sep 16, 2003, 11:03 PM
I know there are more getting out there into the channel... anyone else had a chance to put one through it's paces?

thx

-- james

000111one111000
Sep 16, 2003, 11:43 PM
xBench results for my brother's G5.

All stock, nothing extra installed yet.



Results 152.69
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.1
System Version 10.2.7 (G5) (6S80)
Physical RAM 512 MB
Model PowerMac7,2
Processor PowerPC 970 @ 1.80 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.80 GHz
Bus Frequency 900 MHz
Video Card GeForce FX 5200
Drive Type ST3160023AS
CPU Test 164.23
GCD Loop 100.66 3.93 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 266.84 964.99 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 123.42 3.59 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 171.43 2.66 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 353.59 14.15 Mops/sec
Thread Test 103.73
Computation 73.76 590.58 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 174.69 2.19 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 259.93
System 255.25
Allocate 468.40 315.85 Kalloc/sec
Fill 175.17 1394.36 MB/sec
Copy 255.80 1278.99 MB/sec
Stream 264.79
Copy 226.28 1654.09 MB/sec [G5]
Scale 230.67 1702.31 MB/sec [G5]
Add 304.85 1951.07 MB/sec [G5]
Triad 325.55 1989.14 MB/sec [G5]
Quartz Graphics Test 181.96
Line 203.46 5.18 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 188.96 13.29 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 202.71 4.67 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 166.11 1.80 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 158.27 2.58 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 211.24
Spinning Squares 211.24 147.82 frames/sec
User Interface Test 172.62
Elements 172.62 55.52 refresh/sec
Disk Test 110.83
Sequential 115.15
Uncached Write 146.31 58.24 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 137.10 53.51 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 81.64 12.92 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 119.62 48.33 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 106.83
Uncached Write 103.53 1.48 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 107.37 24.22 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 100.64 0.66 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 117.19 24.12 MB/sec [256K blocks]



Tomorrow, I'm gonna try the UT 2003 demo on it. I installed America's Army, but haven't had a chance to try it out too much yet.


if you want to know anything specific, besides games, let me know, and I'll see what i can do.

enoch

jamesa
Sep 17, 2003, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by 000111one111000

Tomorrow, I'm gonna try the UT 2003 demo on it. I installed America's Army, but haven't had a chance to try it out too much yet.


if you want to know anything specific, besides games, let me know, and I'll see what i can do.

enoch [/B]

hey,

thanks! :)

he's got the std graphics card I take it?

-- james

000111one111000
Sep 17, 2003, 02:00 AM
Yeah, stock everything.

I'll post the FPS on UT 2003 tomorrow, and Q3A if I remember.

enoch

000111one111000
Sep 17, 2003, 06:46 PM
ok, I just installed and ran the UT 2003 Demo.

With all settings set to "highest" and a display size of 800x600, I got a constant 80-90 fps. When things would get really busy, it'd drop down to 30-40 fps for only a second or two, and then shoot back up to 80-90 fps.

Remember, this is the stock config. 512 MB RAM, GeForceFX card, etc.

I'm sure if you pop one of the Radeons in and boost the RAM, it'd fly through games.

If you want to know anything else, just tell me. :)

enoch

jamesa
Sep 18, 2003, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by 000111one111000

I'm sure if you pop one of the Radeons in and boost the RAM, it'd fly through games.

If you want to know anything else, just tell me. :)

enoch

thx!

see here everyone

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/G5/Dual_g5_9600_9800_tests.html

-- james

BIGgui_X_
Sep 18, 2003, 12:37 PM
Yeah ! i saw those tests ! I was surprised to see that the G5 is not as fast as I tought ! I just bought a Single G4 1.25 for 1649 canadian with the radeon 9000. My question is : How faster is a dual G4 compared to a single G4 (in games, apps, etc) when the app or game is not optimized for mp's machines ! nothing ? 10 % ? is a CPU processing the sound, when another doing somthing else ? For those reasons, i tought It was a better option for me to buy a single G4 (since i dont use any mp's apps, or rarely) and to put the extra 500 $ canadian on a Gfx card (when the 9800 will drop a bit) What do you think ?

Bluefusion
Sep 18, 2003, 04:21 PM
No, a dual-processor machine is always quite a bit faster in nearly anything. In UT 2k3 for example, the second processor deals with the sound, while the first does everything else... but EVERY OS X-native app takes advantage of MP, and therefore every app benefits from dual processors tremendously.

There's a reason a single 450 is considered horribly outdated, while a dual 450 still isn't. Duals are more current for much longer, as well as being faster machines.

Shoulda gotten a dual... ;)

BIGgui_X_
Sep 18, 2003, 05:04 PM
I think i'll do !
Is it possible to change an order once it's done ? I only ordered yesterday !
I just call and tell them to add a CPU to my single G4 ?

thanks for the advices

Veldek
Sep 23, 2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by jamesa
According to MacWorld (http://www.macworld.com/2003/09/reviews/macworldlabfirstg5testresults/):

Quake 3 1.30b5

G5 Dual 2ghz: 268.5 FPS
G5 1.8ghz: 133
G5 1.6ghz: 117.4
G4 Dual 1.42ghz: 134.1
G4 1ghz: 75.6

Anyone else tested anything?

-- james

Well, although it's a big leap, that seems not so good in comparison to the newest Intel and AMD machines:

Quake3 - Demo1

Pentium 4EE 3,4 GHz: 414,4 fps
Pentium 4EE 3,2 GHz: 401,6 fps
Ahlon64 FX 51 2,2 GHz: 349,1 fps
Pentium 4 3,2 GHz: 390 fps

Edot
Sep 23, 2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Veldek
Well, although it's a big leap, that seems not so good in comparison to the newest Intel and AMD machines:

Quake3 - Demo1

Pentium 4EE 3,4 GHz: 414,4 fps
Pentium 4EE 3,2 GHz: 401,6 fps
Ahlon64 FX 51 2,2 GHz: 349,1 fps
Pentium 4 3,2 GHz: 390 fps

I always have to question gaming benchmarks. Are gaming tests consistent? How many objects are on the screen and how fast are they moving? Everyone always questions Photoshop and other apps' benchmarks because they use different files and sizes. Why is this not the case with gaming benchmarks. I haven't seen any indication that there is a standard set of tests that these games use for a benchmark. A game "benchmark" defies the very definition of the word if there is nothing consistent to compare them with. Please show me some standards!