PDA

View Full Version : MacAddict's Power Mac G5 Tests


adamfilip
Sep 13, 2003, 08:15 AM
http://www.macaddict.com/news/news_007.html

wow most of the numbers arent impressive except the last one.

when they bumped the ram up.

I LIKE IT!

MrMacMan
Sep 13, 2003, 09:48 AM
Yeah...

So remember if you max out your Ram and your video card... you get an absurd preformance boost.

:p

Powerbook G5
Sep 13, 2003, 10:11 AM
Mmm...RAM...all that RAM really stands for is your Really Awesome Mac quotiant. The higher your RAM, the more awesome your Mac becomes. My PowerBook is not so awesome, unfortunately, it only has 192 out of 384 possible awesomeness points. This makes me sad, but this is the way of things.

Independence
Sep 13, 2003, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Powerbook G5
Mmm...RAM...all that RAM really stands for is your Really Awesome Mac quotiant. The higher your RAM, the more awesome your Mac becomes. My PowerBook is not so awesome, unfortunately, it only have 192 out of 384 possible awesomeness points. This makes me sad, but this is the way of things.
don't feel sad. my emachines PC has only 256mb of ram and my 9 year old thinkpad is maxed our at 24mb ram.

Powerbook G5
Sep 13, 2003, 10:38 AM
My dad had an eMachines at work one time. That really made me sad. It reminded me of a splitting headache, hitting your thumb with a hammer accidentally, and tripping over the garden hose causing you to scrape both knees and elbows all rolled up into one singular painful force.

macpoweruser
Sep 13, 2003, 11:16 AM
It would be great if we could see what the times are for the other machines when they're not crippled with only 512MB of RAM...

Then we'll know how much faster the G5 really will be for Photoshop users who have always known that RAM is important.

MacsRgr8
Sep 13, 2003, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by macpoweruser
....when they're not crippled with only 512MB of RAM...

"crippled with only 512 MB RAM".... wow, times have changed :D

BTW, I agree entirely.

nospleen
Sep 13, 2003, 11:41 AM
I wish they would have installed the ram and the updated video card in the 1.8 and see what it would do. I was pretty impressed with how the 1.8 did stock against the dual 2.0. But, if I had the extra cash, I would still purchase the dual 2.0.

macpoweruser
Sep 13, 2003, 11:45 AM
I know it's not the same file that the MacAddict people used, so take these numbers only casually, but I tried some of the tasks on a 115 MB Photoshop file with my Dual 800 G4 with 1.5 GB of RAM. I just wanted to get a ballpark idea of how fast/slow my machine is.

Rotate 90 degrees: about 3.5 seconds
Convert RGB to CMYK: about 17 seconds
Gauss 1 pixel: 5 secs
Gaussian blur 25 pixels: 22.5 secs

So for the first three, it seems like the G5 is about twice as fast, but the Gaussian blur for 25 pixels was 4-5 times faster on the G5.

twentyeight7
Sep 13, 2003, 12:51 PM
i already bought an extra gig of ram for my stock dualie look like im gunna get another

stoid
Sep 13, 2003, 01:49 PM
Just for some more reference:

Gateway 930Mhz, 128MB RAM, no clue what video card because I don't know how to find out.


Rotate 90 degrees - 90 seconds
RGB to CYMK - 62 seconds
Guassian Blur 1 pixel - 69 seconds
Gaussian Blur 25 pixels - 102 seconds

adamfilip
Sep 13, 2003, 02:40 PM
those are some pretty scary numbers.. 90 sec to rotate 90 degrees?!

chadfromdallas
Sep 13, 2003, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by stoid
Just for some more reference:

Gateway 930Mhz, 128MB RAM, no clue what video card because I don't know how to find out.


Rotate 90 degrees - 90 seconds
RGB to CYMK - 62 seconds
Guassian Blur 1 pixel - 69 seconds
Gaussian Blur 25 pixels - 102 seconds

Yes, wow thats terrible, lol. Get rid of that peice :p

By the way, it probably has an integraded card.

If you are running XP, you can see by:
Right clicking on your desktop
Click properties
Then the settings tab
Click advanced
Then the adapter tab

MattG
Sep 13, 2003, 03:44 PM
Sweet...glad I ordered an extra 1gb of memory for mine. Now if only they'd SHIP the damned thing.

Genie
Sep 13, 2003, 04:00 PM
I got 3 extra Gigs from Crucial for my dualie.

Dont Hurt Me
Sep 13, 2003, 04:51 PM
please dont hurt me but when isnt ram a performance boost??If you dont have to access your harddrive and have it all sitting in memory then the cpu is able to allways be working on something,G5,G4,G3-more memory is allways a good thing.

gwangung
Sep 13, 2003, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
please dont hurt me but when isnt ram a performance boost??If you dont have to access your harddrive and have it all sitting in memory then the cpu is able to allways be working on something,G5,G4,G3-more memory is allways a good thing.

I think the big thing is that with the new bus and whatnot, the speed boost from extra RAM is gonna be a lot more extreme than before. I saw a big boost going from 256 to 1Gig, but not that much going from 1 Gig to 2 Gig. I think with th G5s, there's gonna be just as big a jump, going from Gig to Gig....

Independence
Sep 13, 2003, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Powerbook G5
My dad had an eMachines at work one time. That really made me sad. It reminded me of a splitting headache, hitting your thumb with a hammer accidentally, and tripping over the garden hose causing you to scrape both knees and elbows all rolled up into one singular painful force.
wow.

i haven't had a bit of grief with mine. it doesn't crash and it offers excellent bang-for-the-buck. i'm happy with it. i'm still gonna work my way towards an imac though. or a G5 if i'm lucky. :D

Genie
Sep 13, 2003, 08:21 PM
I was just about to get a Dell when they delayed my dualie shipment but Dell couldn't offer anything close to the value.

Powerbook G5
Sep 13, 2003, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by Independence
wow.

i haven't had a bit of grief with mine. it doesn't crash and it offers excellent bang-for-the-buck. i'm happy with it. i'm still gonna work my way towards an imac though. or a G5 if i'm lucky. :D

It was an older eMachines and it seriously was a cheap piece of crap. I've noticed that overall quality has actually improved on many PCs since the years I used to be a PC user. But yeah...it was an AMD K...6 I think? with 3D Now when it was the hottest new technology. I think it had 32 megs RAM an running Win 95 I believe. It seriously just could bearly just run Windows by itself, but when you tried running something on top of that, it just slowly started to die for the next hour or two until it became unstable. I think it was probably some sort of memory leak, because it'd just work towards a full system-wide slowdown until it just died everytime you used it. I haven't used any of the new eMachines, but they do look like they have a bit more quality when I pass by them at Circuit City.

MrMacMan
Sep 13, 2003, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by Independence
don't feel sad. my emachines PC has only 256mb of ram and my 9 year old thinkpad is maxed our at 24mb ram.

Don't feel bad!

HA!

My Calculator HAS MORE MEMORY THEN THE LAPTOP MY SCHOOL GAVE ME!

:eek:

It... Runs... PALM-OS!!!!

:confused:

Keith Purfield
Sep 13, 2003, 11:54 PM
If 2GB of RAM took 2 seconds to rotate 90 degrees, I don't think 8GB of RAM will take any seconds.

Vlade
Sep 14, 2003, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by Keith Purfield
If 2GB of RAM took 2 seconds to rotate 90 degrees, I don't think 8GB of RAM will take any seconds.

Thats probably not the case, the file probably uses anywhere from 512 to 2GBs or RAM, so 512 wouldn't be enough for the file, but 2Gbs would be more than enough.

I would like to see some tests of all memory configurations in 512 meg intervals, :)

Dont Hurt Me
Sep 14, 2003, 11:25 AM
I have to make one more comment since iam a subscriber to macaddict, they are getting away from using any gaming frame rates and that simply sucks! Come on Rik! how about a Ut2003 or Nascar 2003 or RTCW but to keep feeding us those darn blurs,rotation, photoshop and no gaming rates can mean little to nothing to a lot of people. We want to know if doom3 will be faster on g5 mac then when the wind blows machines.

Mav451
Sep 14, 2003, 12:19 PM
Don't Hurt Me: MacAddict did that for many reasons.

Mac's, while improving in games, are still much stronger in their Photoshop performance--hence their use at keynotes and in this case, showing the performance difference between the G4 and G5.

With PC's, photoshop optimizations are not as emphasized (I don't think AMD has specific optimizations). PC's i find are STILL the better gaming platform at-the-moment.

MattG
Sep 14, 2003, 04:27 PM
What I'd be interested in seeing is on the last test, where the dual 2ghz took 2 seconds to rotate an image when the RAM was bumped up to 2gb--how does the 1.8ghz compare when you bump up the RAM?

Genie
Sep 14, 2003, 05:39 PM
Yeah- did they add the extra rsam to all the machines (probably not) - the graphs aren't comparing "apples to apples".:)

MattG
Sep 14, 2003, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Genie
Yeah- did they add the extra rsam to all the machines (probably not) - the graphs aren't comparing "apples to apples".:) No they didn't add the RAM to all of the machines. I don't understand the point of that last test. How can you compare four computers when one of them has 4x the RAM the others do??

Powerbook G5
Sep 14, 2003, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by MattG
No they didn't add the RAM to all of the machines. I don't understand the point of that last test. How can you compare four computers when one of them has 4x the RAM the others do??

I'd say it's for fun! It's like when Road and Track does comparisons between the Corvette and the Viper...then fly an F/18 fighter jet to compare it to...it's just for ****s and giggles. After comparing all these computers, I would be excited to just stuff all the RAM I could and tweak it out and unleash the system to see its full capability. Besides, I am sure there are more than a few out there who have ordered a dual G5 with 4+ gigs of RAM who would love to see that extreme side test of what the system can do when virtual memory and disk swapping isn't a factor.

Kiwi-Todd
Sep 14, 2003, 09:00 PM
Yeah I reckon it's still an interesting (and somewhat relevant) test to jack up the RAM.

I for one would never have imagined a performance jump like that - I have doubled the RAM in my 17 inch PB and saw barely noticeable incremental performance whereas you would have to notice that sort of performance jump!

I would have been keen to see what the RAM did for the QT Pro tests as well as some FCP 4.0 Render-offs!:p

Vlade
Sep 14, 2003, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by Kiwi-Todd
Yeah I reckon it's still an interesting (and somewhat relevant) test to jack up the RAM.

I for one would never have imagined a performance jump like that - I have doubled the RAM in my 17 inch PB and saw barely noticeable incremental performance whereas you would have to notice that sort of performance jump!
p

You are probably dealing with small files, try getting a hundred meg file, then benchmarking, with your average digital photo you won't notice much of a difference from RAM, but BIG resolution photos thrive on more RAM

Powerbook G5
Sep 14, 2003, 09:18 PM
Man...back in 1999 when I tripped my RAM to 192 megs I used to think how amazing it was that I had so much RAM in my laptop...now it seems like if you don't have at least a half a gig of RAM you might as well use a typewriter.

Kiwi-Todd
Sep 14, 2003, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by Vlade
You are probably dealing with small files, try getting a hundred meg file, then benchmarking, with your average digital photo you won't notice much of a difference from RAM, but BIG resolution photos thrive on more RAM

Yeah, you're right there - I mainly do video stuff though on FCP so do you know if performance (renders and Real Time ) is enhanced significantly by copious quantities of RAM?

Powerbook G5
Sep 14, 2003, 09:44 PM
I'm sure that extra RAM cannot hurt. :) I'm not sure how much you do or how many programs you keep open, but having more RAM than you need will help ensure that you are in the fast lane so you don't get stuck lagging when OS X starts swapping HD pages to keep up with your work.