PCMag's PowerMac G5 2.0GHz Review

[MacBytes]

PC Magazine (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1274138,00.asp) posted their first impressions and benchmarks from Apple's Dual 2.0GHz PowerMac G5. While suspect of Apple's claims of the worlds fastest personal computer, PCMagazine admits that "the G5 is generally as fast as the best Intel-based workstations currently available".

PCMagazine's benchmarks compare a Dual 2.0GHz G5 to a Dell Dual 3.06GHz Xeon machine, and showed comparable results:

On our cross-platform application tests, the G5 was the clear winner on tests using Adobe Acrobat and Sorenson Squeeze (a video compression tool). The Dell entry bested the G5 under Adobe Photoshop 7 and NewTek Lightwave 3D, a 3-D modeling application.

Benchmarks results are provided by the magazine, and test suite details are provided on the second page with the note that loading the controls on the PC (under Photoshop) often took a minute or more (these times were not included in their final benchmark numbers).

Recent Dual 2.0GHz benchmarks (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/09/20030917204045.shtml) posted by individuals offer similar promising results.

[dombi]

They removed the times it took for the PC to load the controls...that is how the PC bested the Mac.

"At these larger image sizes, although the Wintel test times were quite good, both the G4 and G5 computers proved more adept at distort functions like wave and pinch. Moreover, on the Windows system, loading the controls often took a minute or more. If these times are added back to the actual test times, both Macintosh computers would have clearly outperformed the Windows-based computer."

[evolu]

wonder if Photoshop had the G5 optimization plug-in?

Otherwise, smoke those beige ugly boxes!

[QCassidy352]

GREAT news. If PC Magazine is saying the G5 is so fast, people are going to have to believe it.

I know it's been said before, but I'll say it again -- the title of "world's fastest computer" is just for bragging rights; what actually matters is that Macs are seriously competitive again. The two machines seem about evenly matched, but even if one is slightly faster than the other, who cares. The point is that it's comparable again, whereas it was just a blowout when powermacs had the G4.

[GregGomer]

Did they use the new G5 optimized Photoshop plugin, I assume they did?

Also, what do you mean by they didn't count the time to load the controls? You mean the time to open the plugin's parameter window? I guess I didn't fully understand that part.

Greg

[dombi]

You can read the article on the site that will explain how they did the testing.

Originally posted by GregGomer
Did they use the new G5 optimized Photoshop plugin, I assume they did?

Also, what do you mean by they didn't count the time to load the controls? You mean the time to open the plugin's parameter window? I guess I didn't fully understand that part.

Greg

[Backtothemac]

Here is my bitch. Why use Dual 3.06 GHZ Xeons? Those are Corporate server processors, and are really, really expensive. Do a cost comparison, and the G5 smokes the Grey box.

Also, how can you not include the time that it takes to load the filter? That is insane!

Overall, nice to see the PC users realize their plight :)

[gerardrj]

Originally posted by dombi
They removed the times it took for the PC to load the controls...that is how the PC bested the Mac.

Who spends more time testing software benchmark configurations for results to publish:
1. Apple to make the Mac look fast
2. The PC mags to make Apple look like liars

[Poff]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Here is my bitch. Why use Dual 3.06 GHZ Xeons? Those are Corporate server processors, and are really, really expensive. Do a cost comparison, and the G5 smokes the Grey box.


The PC was about the same price as the mac according to the tests. (Mac was upgraded with 2gigs ram and 9800 graphics card.)

[mcdawson]

Originally posted by evolu
wonder if Photoshop had the G5 optimization plug-in?

Otherwise, smoke those beige ugly boxes!

The article said that they used Photoshop 7.0.1 with the G5 plugin…

[gothamac]

I saw on another discussion board that the PC they used was about $5,500
on the Dell web site. Also, they had Apple install an extra gig of ram, and we
all know how over priced that is.

[silvergunuk]

Notice they didn't say how much ram the dell pc had, I just checked on their own website and it came to just over $6000. They should have given the full spec of the pc and not just give the mac more ram to justify the insanely high price they gave it.

Damn you just beat me to it :(

[zapp]

In the first paragraph of the article, they admit that they were out to disprove Mr. Jobs claim that the Dual G5 is the fastest personal computer. Just by that admission that invalidates any data they publish. And then there was the issue of loading controls..........isn't that part of the test???

Think I will go ride my bike.

[otherguy]

Did anyone notice those G4 times? The Dual G4 even smoked that Dell at several things... :eek:

[acj]

A few notes:

The Dell CAN be configured similarly for under $4500, which includes a $400 graphics card upgrade, 2 gigs of ram, etc. This does not include the Xeons with the L3 cache.

Dells ram is also overpriced.

For myself and my colleagues, filter speed is not the main issue in Photoshop.

The right filters in a benchmark can make a single G4 1.25 seem faster than a dual Xeon 3.06, and a single Pentium 4 2Ghz seem faster than a dual G5 2.0.

What is this loading controls BS? What controls? Huh?

The G5 Photoshop plug in does not improve things much (yet)

[gothamac]

Originally posted by silvergunuk
Notice they didn't say how much ram the dell pc had, I just checked on their own website and it came to just over $6000. They should have given the full spec of the pc and not just give the mac more ram to justify the insanely high price they gave it.

Damn you just beat me to it :(

Well then, how about installing your own RAM upgrade and that brings the G5
to about $4,000 vs $6,000 for the PC. A full 50% higher price. That seems fair.

[Genie]

At the same price, withjust the stock machine and components from NewEgg, the G5 slays the Dual Xeon.

I know- when Apple were delaying my G5 shipment - I considered getting the Dell.

Dude, I'm glad I didn't.

http://www.geniesongs.com/genie/endorsements/apple/Genie-G5Computer50pix.jpg (http://geniesongs.com/personal.html)

[mcdawson]

Looking at the times, I saw some odd differences between the G5, G4, & Xenon machines. However, I don't know enough about Photoshop to understand the "why". Given that the dual G5 is rougly 30% faster than the 1.4 G4, its a great testimony to the machine that it was usually more than 30% faster than the G4 (1.42x CPU & 1.43x faster in overall tests)

The one exception was the "Noise median" test, where the G5 was only about 15 % faster. When the G5 lost to the Xenon, it was usually a close loss; however, it was 1.8x slower on this same test. What is this test, and why would the Windows machines perform so much better than Apple's?

It also was interesting that the G5 beat the G4 by 2.9x & 2x on the unsharp mask & wave tests--I wonder what was in those tests that allowed optimization to succeed so well?

If the RGB lighting, noise median, and RGB to CMYK tests could be optimized to about equal the Xenon's score, it looks like it would have been about a dead heat (105 sec vs 102)--and handily beat the Xenon if the "control loading" issue had been included.

[panphage]

Originally posted by Poff
The PC was about the same price as the mac according to the tests. (Mac was upgraded with 2gigs ram and 9800 graphics card.)

Yeah, a Precision 650 w/Dual 3.06 Xeons, 2GB RAM on 4 DIMMS (DDR 266 though), it comes to a couple hundred less than their quoted price for the apple.

#1 Ram: The Dell has four sticks of 512MB DDR266. The Apple has two sticks of 1024MB DDR400. The Dell memory is ECC. So, costwise, prolly not too different. Go to 2x1024MB sticks in the dell and you're talking about an extra $629. ouch. (Can someone tell me what NECC is? It was an option on the dell but didn't change the price.)

#2 HDD: The dell has 120GB 7200RPM ATA. The Apple, 160GB 7200RPM SATA. Another slight discrepancy, but that's the best non-scsi drive available on the dell. Grab the 146GB U3 scsi drive and the dell gets expensive, but I'm guessing the HDD performance goes WAY up compared to the SATA.

#3 the dell has no equivalent available to the Superdrive, my $300 less than apple config had a fast CD/RW.

ALSO, the Graphics cards are out of whack. The dell is a workstation, you can only configure it with the really high-end cards I wish were available for the G5. The default (where I left it to not fudge the #s) is a "Radeon VE" w/32mb memory. I don't even know what a Radeon VE is. It appears to be a Radeon 7000. That's a bit of a drop from a 9800 pro with 128mb ram. But again the only option is to go to a FireGL, Wildcat, or QuadroFX. I just don't know enough about video cards to pick on that's close to the Radeon 9800.

So as always, there's just no way to really compare very very close configs. The dell seems to either fall short for about the same price or get great features for a significant increase. But there's no way to make the dell have really equivalent features and see how much that'd run you.

[acj]

I know my work would choose the radeon VE. It's all that's needed. And there is a "superdrive" The DVD+R is not the same spec as Apples DVD-R, but it's the same speed, and it burns CDs of course.

[MOM]

Add me to the list of dumb people who don't know what loading the controls means. Do they mean launching the program? Or, launching a script to run the tests?

[odenshaw]

didn't jobs say something about how preview is way faster than acrobat anyway.
That would mean the mac would win by even more!!!

anyway, because who uses acrobat anyway? hahahaaa

[mcdawson]

Originally posted by acj
A few notes:

The G5 Photoshop plug in does not improve things much (yet)

It looks like it improved the unsharp mask & wave tests quite a bit (2.8x & 2x faster respectively)--that's way more than the CPU boost (1.42x faster). It improved enough that it beat the Xenon (unsharp) and got really close (wave). The noise median test was slower than the CPU bost (1.13x faster); the rest seemed roughly a "CPU bost" (1.4x) faster…

[acj]

Originally posted by mcdawson
It looks like it improved the unsharp mask & wave tests quite a bit (2.8x & 2x faster respectively)--that's way more than the CPU boost (1.42x faster). It improved enough that it beat the Xenon (unsharp) and got really close (wave). The noise median test was slower than the CPU bost (1.13x faster); the rest seemed roughly a "CPU bost" (1.4x) faster…

I think the G5 would still score higher than the MHz difference would suggest, without the plugin.

[Steven1621]

the g5 may be just as fast as the pc, but it is the software that truely set the two apart. os x is so much better than windows. there is no debate there.

[macMaestro]

That photo sure is crappy... It looks all purple and green. Bluck.

[Farside161]

did any one else notice that they said that the G5 has 2 firewire 800 ports (one on the front) and only one firwire 400 port. i thought it was firewire 400 that had 2 ports (one on the front) not firewire 800. these little mistakes make me not like PC mag.

[mcdawson]

Originally posted by acj
I think the G5 would still score higher than the MHz difference would suggest, without the plugin.

The unshrap & wave tests were dramatically faster on the G5 vs G4 than the other tests, which is why I thought these two must have some speedup due to the G5 (more than just the MHz boost). The others were faster, but these were so much faster (unsharp almost 3x faster)…

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by odenshaw
didn't jobs say something about how preview is way faster than acrobat anyway.
That would mean the mac would win by even more!!!

anyway, because who uses acrobat anyway? hahahaaa

I think they were testing Acrobat the pdf creation tool, not the viewer.

BTW, I use Acrobat Reader. Preview doesn't allow checking for embedded fonts and still has some printing glitches.

[sabbath999]

Originally posted by zapp
Think I will go ride my bike.

Cool. Just came in from a 30 miler myself on ye ole TCR Aero.

I think the most important part of the speed test was missed.

The Dell may have been about as fast as the mac, but WINDOWS SUCKS.

And OSX rox.

Just wait until Panther roars on the G5 Dual bad boy.

[superfoo]

I guess it was an *alright* article... Especially coming from PCMag.

I think if anything, their 4/5 rating and performance testings just go to show how exceptional these high-end G5 boxes really are/will turn out to be...

The point for my post, however, is that PCMag would have done well to point out that a similarly configured Dell (priced for a full config. from Dell's site, just as the G5 was priced for a full config. from Apple's site) is actually a litte bit more *expensive* than the G5, and still lacks (among other things):

- PCI-X
- FW800
- SATA
- High(er) bandwidth system arch.
- *Quiet* fan operation
- Etc.

I.e, the G5 gives one far more bang for the buck (This is an Apple -- So it should be a big deal, as price was one thing that PCs generally trounced Apple on!), better build quality, (probably) better performance, etc.... and of course, that *sexy* case.

Then again, I guess it's called PC Magazine for a reason?

[ibjoshua]

I'm probably wrong but I think when they refer to loading the 'controls' they are talking about the 'control subjects' i.e. opening the test files.

Anyone agree?

i_b_joshua

[ibjoshua]

PS

That was an amazingly positive review for a PC mag. Credit to them for publishing it at all. Media silence hurts our favourite platform more than a few biased facts.

i_b_joshua

[uberman42]

Didn't the G5s on stage in WWDC just beat the crap out of the Xenon and P4? It just seems that it completely trounced them and now you see these tests and you feel like - "Ok. That's nice, it is on par. I now just feel ok. Even steven.". Was I watching the WWDC, too close to the RDF being emitted from my PB? Would a full load of RAM completely trounce these Win PCs? Or is it truly Panther being the wildcard in performance? Or Maybe...it was a 64 bit version of Panther in WWDC and all those apps in the WWDC were actually rewritten to take advantage of 64-bit addressing! A-ha! That is it.

I think I will get on my bike and roll down a hill...

[Makosuke]

Neat benchmarks, and good to see the G5 holding its own against a very high end computer... particularly since I finally ordered mine a couple hours ago (thanks in part to the edu discount, it looks like I'm paying over $1000 less than their test system for very similar specs).

I also found the fact that they were pitting it against a high-end Dell interesting since I was just configuring a similar CAD workstation for a client at the Dell site. Price and speed comparisons are always a shady area, but in general terms its pretty clear that the G5 can hold its own against a Dell workstation at a similar price. And it runs the MacOS. Score one for Apple.

Now, if you want detailed comparsions (hey, I'm a geek, I actually enjoy this stuff), the price comparisons are very difficult given Dell's highly confusing configurator (though it certainly does offer a wide variety of options). I played around with the numbers just for fun, and here's what I got along with a huge list of caveats:

I came up with $5,285 assuming they got:

-the 1MB L3 cache Xeons (probably)
-the cheapest 128MB graphics card Dell offers, the QuadroFX 500 (which is only $100 higher than the base 32MB card, and graphics cards wouldnt've made much difference in their speed tests)
-opted for the 2DIMM 2GB memory configuration instead of the four (same as Apple's)
-upgraded to a 120GB IDE HD
-got a DVD burner (cheapest)

(If you go with four DIMMS, you get a price $600 lower--$4,636, still higher than their Mac, but since the 2GB Apple Store configuration uses 2 1GB DIMMS, that's not exactly fair--you could just buy some cheaper ones elsewhere and upgrade them yourself.)

To get a similar configuration on both machines, you'd end up with a $5,767 Dell and a $4,958 Mac (explanation below).

Here are the issues I caught with this comparison:

-Dell kicks in a Palm Zire or cheap printer free
-The PC has a lot more internal expansion bays and two more non-PCIx slots (it does have 3 PCIx slots).
-The Dell has a 3-year warranty, which costs $250 from Apple (Applecare)
-The Dell has a built in U320 SCSI controller (on the motherboard?), which is worth quite a bit if you use it-- ~$250 value.
-The G5 has built-in SATA, and comes with a 160GB SATA drive, which Dell doesn't offer on that model. Adding another 40GB IDE drive for equivalent storage brings the price up $110, but a $50 SATA card and a $120 SATA drive tacked on to the base drive would be a better comparison.
-The G5 can go up to 8GB RAM instead of 4GB.
-The G5 comes standard with much better sound; you could add an $80 Sound Blaster Audigy 2 card to the Dell to bring it above the G5, if you wanted.
-The G5 has a FW800 port; the Dell only has 400Mbps ports (+$75 if you want the 1394b).
-The graphic card is the biggest one, since there are no workstation-class graphics on the Mac (bummer). Here's what I've been able to figure out:

The Radeon 9800 Pro is similar to ATI's workstation-class FireGL X2, but with half the RAM, a few less hardware tweaks that make the X2 better for a workstation, and a different driver (the consumer card is game tuned, the Workstation model is CAD/3D work tuned). The same goes for NVIDIA's Quadro FX cards vs. their high end gaming cards.

Comparitive benchmarks are tough (if not impossible), mainly since the cards are designed for different purposes, but if you want a very rough comparison, the 128MB 9800 Pro should be in the ballpark of an older FireGL X1, which (acording to Tom's (http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030916/opengl-20.html)) is a little slower than an FX 1000 but much faster than an FX 500. The X1 costs $300 more than the FX 500 from Dell.

[mcdawson]

Originally posted by uberman42
Didn't the G5s on stage in WWDC just beat the crap out of the Xenon and P4? It just seems that it completely trounced them and now you see these tests and you feel like - "Ok. That's nice, it is on par. I now just feel ok. Even steven.". Was I watching the WWDC, too close to the RDF being emitted from my PB? Would a full load of RAM completely trounce these Win PCs? Or is it truly Panther being the wildcard in performance?...

I think the wild card is the suite of tests being run. Time and time again, PC people can (and do) pick a different set of tests and "trounce" the Mac. What was important--and surprised the PC Mag--was that THEIR set of tests showed that the Mac was equal to or better than the PC. The first time in recent history that has EVER happened. For them to say it was (just about) equal is the highest praise!

I doubt a different config (more RAM, Panther) would significantly effect the results. Pather could help, but only to the degree that an app like Photoshop talks to it. For example, if Photoshop loads its data into memory and crunches it and that data crunching is the majority of ithe time, then Panther won't help much. What would probably help more is Adobe or Lightwave doing more optimization on their side. However, since the dual G4 beats the PC in the Acrobat tests, I would guess that means that the system is helping out. Since the system seems to be helping, I would guess that Panther would improve those scores even more.

In some tests, the Mac probably will never win, as those can be ones where MHz DOES matter. For all the talk that MHz doesn't matter, it can. If that PC's CPU is kepting crunching and there's no Altivec shortcut available, the Mac (in this case) would always be 50% slower (2 GHz vs 3 GHz). That doesn't happen often, which is why the G5 can run so close in performance.

[Gyroscope]

I'd wait 'till Panther comes out.According to some published sources and preliminary tests, it boasts overall system performance by 20-50 % on the g4,g3 class hardware. :) Plus there will be plethora of additional G5 specific optimizations.

Can't wait to see G5 shine on Black Cat ;)

[The Grimace]

Originally posted by odenshaw
didn't jobs say something about how preview is way faster than acrobat anyway.
That would mean the mac would win by even more!!!

anyway, because who uses acrobat anyway? hahahaaa

I use Acrobat because it is, in fact, way faster than Preview.

Sorry, but in my world, Mr. Jobs is wrong on this one.

(tig)

[Stike]

Originally posted by The Grimace
I use Acrobat because it is, in fact, way faster than Preview.

Sorry, but in my world, Mr. Jobs is wrong on this one.

(tig)

To clarify this: Jobs was talking about the *Panther Version* of Preview. So, decision delayed.

[Genie]

We might as well enjoy it while it lasts- The G5 is truly the price-performance leader, but with all of the choice on the evil empire side, eventually they should catch up.

http://www.geniesongs.com/genie/endorsements/apple/Genie-G5Computer50pix.jpg (http://geniesongs.com/personal.html)

[sjk]

Originally posted by Steven1621
the g5 may be just as fast as the pc, but it is the software that truely set the two apart. os x is so much better than windows. there is no debate there. There are plenty of people concerned with performance and usability of applications for specific purposes (e.g. their business) more than which OS or hardware they're running on. It's a "most-bang-for-the-buck" application issue, maybe even more-so with higher-end systems like the G5.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Genie (since she mentioned it, not to single her out :)) was considering getting a Dell instead of a G5 which I took to mean the OS really isn't that important for what she does.

For how I use a computer the OS does still matter for me. I'd rather it could be transparent, but that's another topic...

[The Grimace]

Originally posted by Stike
To clarify this: Jobs was talking about the *Panther Version* of Preview. So, decision delayed.

Ah yes, well, my world is currently Jaguar. So, I'll reboot into Panther and see if it's any faster...

(tig)

[The Grimace]

Originally posted by mcdawson
...In some tests, the Mac probably will never win, as those can be ones where MHz DOES matter. For all the talk that MHz doesn't matter, it can. If that PC's CPU is kepting crunching and there's no Altivec shortcut available, the Mac (in this case) would always be 50% slower (2 GHz vs 3 GHz). That doesn't happen often, which is why the G5 can run so close in performance.

It also depends on the type of data being crunched (and not just vector data). Both G5s and Xeons (and P4s) are capable of performing multiple commands in a cycle, depending.

(tig)

[DeusOmnis]

I am extremely surprised that no one has talked about program optimization. Everyone knows that Adobe basically hates Apple (does everyone remember that "PC Preferred" web page?). Seriously, I hate tests on photoshop because you KNOW that Adobe puts WAY more effort into optimizing for PC. Yeah, they released the G5 plug-in. It's obvious that it does very little and they only did it to keep the mac customer's from complaining loudly. I'm positive if the program was evenly optimized that we'd see way different results.

I wish PC Mag would have mentioned that in their article.... *sigh*

[DeusOmnis]

Originally posted by mcdawson
In some tests, the Mac probably will never win, as those can be ones where MHz DOES matter. For all the talk that MHz doesn't matter, it can. If that PC's CPU is kepting crunching and there's no Altivec shortcut available, the Mac (in this case) would always be 50% slower (2 GHz vs 3 GHz). That doesn't happen often, which is why the G5 can run so close in performance.

The P4 pipeline takes about 3x as many clock cycles to do a single calculation, so if the program must wait on that calculation before preceeding, then it effectively gets cut to 1/3 the speed due to the pipeline.

Of couse the pipeline also does 3x as many calculations simultaneously, but unless it has around (21?) different calculations to do at the same time, it's not going to have all those steps full. Most likely the large pipeline creates a large amount of "bubbles" where there isnt any work being done. THIS EFFECTIVELY REDUCES THE CLOCK SPEED.

So what I'm saying is... yes, mhz does matter, but only if your processor is designed in such a way that it can use it. The P4 is not designed in a way to use all of it's power efficiently.

BTW, has anyone heard anything about the P5? The P4 has been out for a while now...

[cljmac]

this article says the dell is almost the same price.... wrong..price out a dell
workstation with dual xeons. with 2gb
of ram. a 146gb hard drive a better video card, a modem, without a monitor it comes to about 6k.

for that price you could put another 4gb
of ram in the mac and still save money.

[ImAlwaysRight]

Originally posted by Farside161
did any one else notice that they said that the G5 has 2 firewire 800 ports (one on the front) and only one firwire 400 port. i thought it was firewire 400 that had 2 ports (one on the front) not firewire 800. these little mistakes make me not like PC mag.
They also said the G5 came in as heavier than the previous generation at 39 pounds. I believe when the G5 was introduced in June I looked up the weight of the G4 MDD and it was 41 pounds, so the G5 is actually lighter. Oh yeah, and thinner, than the previous generation.

[fourthtunz]

Does anyone know if PC Mag ran the G5 with it optomized as far as the energy saver thingy? I don't have a G5 but wasn't there a post on here about G5's running faster with the manual setting rather than automatic, as they are sent from Apple?
Hey I'm tired and I don't know if the above is right but I think if Pc Mag really wanted a fair test they would have maxed out both machines ram, 8gig for the Mac and 4 gig for the PC and used a lot bigger graphic file:rolleyes:
Not fair you say for the mac to have more ram, hey the pc has 2ghz more on the processsor end right?
daniel

[PowerBook User]

Originally posted by otherguy
Did anyone notice those G4 times? The Dual G4 even smoked that Dell at several things... :eek:
I noticed that, too. I'm pretty impressed that the G4 was able to beat the Xeon system on a couple things. At the price Apple is selling the Power Mac G4 for right now, I think it's a good value if you don't need the G5.

I think the G5's performance was great. The Xeon system is a workstation, while the G5 is a regular personal computer. It might just be a marketing difference, but I still think it's interesting.

[panphage]

Originally posted by PowerBook User
I noticed that, too. I'm pretty impressed that the G4 was able to beat the Xeon system on a couple things. At the price Apple is selling the Power Mac G4 for right now, I think it's a good value if you don't need the G5.

I think the G5's performance was great. The Xeon system is a workstation, while the G5 is a regular personal computer. It might just be a marketing difference, but I still think it's interesting.

The G5 is really a workstation in all but name. Look at the price and the features and the market, that "pro" market is a workstation market. But w/o the high-end graphic cards, it's not *really* a workstation. It's kind of an odd duck. 64-bit proc, monster bandwidth, SATA, etc, etc, but no FireGL, no quadro, no wildcat. The rest of the machine is clearly in the same realm as an SGI IMO. If only it had the 4MB L2. :D

[Titian]

Great.
Now I just hope that Apple / IBM will keep up at least as fast as the PC world.

[iGav]

Good stuff I say... it'd be interesting to see if, as other people have asked here as to whether they changed the energy save setting to manual and highest performance rather than automatic.

I think it's a good show from the G5 on it's first outing though, considering that technically it is crippled by an un-optimized OS and software, and there appears to be discrepancies on the PC results.

Once Apple ships Panther as de-facto and software companies get their products optimized then the performance will increase by significant amounts over the current specs.

What I'd be interested to see if multi-task benchmarks, carry out several tasks at once and get performance figures from that.

I and all of the creatives I know spend a huge amount of time multi-tasking on projects... and after suffering having to do some AE work on a PC last week, I can honestly say that from my experience, Windows can't heavily multi-task for *****!!

As i_b_joshua said previously though, it's quite a positive review from a PC Mag, and that can only be a good thing for the Mac community as a whole.

Wicked!!

[john123]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Here is my bitch. Why use Dual 3.06 GHZ Xeons? Those are Corporate server processors, and are really, really expensive. Do a cost comparison, and the G5 smokes the Grey box.


Next time, do a little comparison yourself first....

I'm patently a Machead but I pride myself on staying pretty unbiased.

You can get a Dell PWS 450 with dual 3.06 Xeons, 2 HDs (one at 120GB and the other at 40GB -- there's no 160GB ATA option and it wouldn't be fair to pay for a SCSI for the Dell), 512MB of RAM, and a 64MB video card (the nVidia Quadro NVS 280, dual monitor VGA) for $3314 from Dell. I just configured it on their web site.

So I don't think that one is "smoking" the other -- much more so that Macs are, for the first time since the introduction of the G3s about 5 years ago, price competitive.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by fourthtunz
Not fair you say for the mac to have more ram, hey the pc has 2ghz more on the processsor end right?
daniel

Completely fair - since Mac OS X is a 32-bit operating system that wouldn't let Photoshop use the extra RAM !

By the same logic, however, on the Intel side they should have tested a quad processor Xeon MP with the 2 MiB L3 cache and 16 GiB of RAM. Why cripple the PC just because the Mac doesn't have a quad?

[macrumors12345]

Originally posted by acj
I think the G5 would still score higher than the MHz difference would suggest, without the plugin.

Well, keep in mind that on tasks that make heavy use of Altivec, the G5 is not much faster clock for clock than the G4. Its only advantage for Altivec tasks is the high-bandwidth bus; the longer pipelines hurt it, and the G5 Altivec unit itself is actually slightly inferior to the MPC 745x Altivec unit (it uses the MPC 7400 Altivec unit, the one on the original G4). But this isn't a very bad thing, because remember that the G4's vector performance was already outstanding (this was in the only area in which the G4 could consistently match or beat the P4).

[commandZ]

I think it’s ridiculous not to include loading the dialog box as time in performing the filter! That said, the G5 performance is excellent.

Get ready for even better test results, as Steve has promise 3GZ speed by mid 2004. That’s a full 1.5 increase in raw speed! Anyone think the zeon be at 4.8 GZ by next summer?

[ITMediaCo]

I'm sure Mr Dvorak had a good say in this report

[sparks9]

So when will Apple upgrade the G5 processors? And to which speed? 2.5 ghz?

[MacRETARD]

Originally posted by commandZ
I think it’s ridiculous not to include loading the dialog box as time in performing the filter! That said, the G5 performance is excellent.

Get ready for even better test results, as Steve has promise 3GZ speed by mid 2004. That’s a full 1.5 increase in raw speed! Anyone think the zeon be at 4.8 GZ by next summer?

The last intel cpu road map I saw showed a 4ghz next generation chip (pentium 5? - haha) with 1mb cache and 1066 mhz bus towards the end of 2004. Intel just annouced a desktop p4 with 2mb of cache so I would assume they will probably keep this available.

I currently think the (single)2ghz g5 is about equal to a 3 ghz p4 so if they have a 3ghz G5 out by the end of summer 2004 a p4 would have to be about 4.5 ghz to be comparable.

There are also strong rumors that intels next chip will support x86 64 (amd's 64 bit extensions).

[dongmin]

Originally posted by commandZ
[B]I think it’s ridiculous not to include loading the dialog box as time in performing the filter! That said, the G5 performance is excellent.

yeah, their photoshop test is highly suspicious. Instead of running a script to run a suite of tests en mass, what they did is to select a filter, wait for the dialogue box to fully open (which they admit took up to a minute on certain tests), and then run the test. A more accurate photoshop test is the PS7Bench which showed the G5 clearly as the top dog. And there are other issues like Energy Saver settings that could've affected the results.

But it's nice to know that in a set-up that's stacked clearly against it, the G5 comes out a big-time winner.

[howard]

on the last page with all the results, i added up all the total times ...g5 was almost 200 seconds faster total than the xeon...pretty incredible.

and this is with only 25% capable ram...

and not even 64 bit optimized

[fourthtunz]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Completely fair - since Mac OS X is a 32-bit operating system that wouldn't let Photoshop use the extra RAM !

By the same logic, however, on the Intel side they should have tested a quad processor Xeon MP with the 2 MiB L3 cache and 16 GiB of RAM. Why cripple the PC just because the Mac doesn't have a quad?

Hey all I'm saying is that I'd like to see real tests
I didn't invent the G5 nor do I own stock in Apple, no need to get snotty:confused:
I wouldn't mind seeing the quad either, what I'm saying is load the machines up with max ram
and run similar, simulataneous apps on both machines so we can see what they can really do.
peace
daniel:D

[bankshot]

Originally posted by DeusOmnis
I am extremely surprised that no one has talked about program optimization. Everyone knows that Adobe basically hates Apple (does everyone remember that "PC Preferred" web page?). Seriously, I hate tests on photoshop because you KNOW that Adobe puts WAY more effort into optimizing for PC. Yeah, they released the G5 plug-in. It's obvious that it does very little and they only did it to keep the mac customer's from complaining loudly. I'm positive if the program was evenly optimized that we'd see way different results.

Sheesh. Step away from the RDF... :rolleyes:

First, that PC Preferred page was so misinterpreted by the Mac fanatics. It was meant as "Do you prefer a PC? That's ok, because Photoshop works well on that too." NOT as "We think you should use a PC for Photoshop because we say the Mac sucks." Huge difference there.

Yes, Adobe was probably pissed about FCE destroying their market for Premiere, but I personally see no evidence to suggest that this affected their stance with regard to Photoshop or other products on Mac. Remember, Adobe is a large company, and different product groups may have very different goals or attitudes with regards to PC vs Mac. But I could be wrong...

Of course there's plenty of optimization that could help on both platforms, but I doubt the outcome is as certain as you suggest. I imagine both could be sped up to some degree, and it's hard to know what that amount is when it hasn't been completed!

And yes, Adobe has more incentive to optimize for PC since that represent a larger percentage of their market these days. It just makes financial sense. But that doesn't necessarily mean they spend that much more time on the PC version (I have no idea), and the conclusion that they must "hate" Apple and Mac users is a bit silly. :D

Sorry for that little rant... ;)

That said, I like the overall message of the article. It seems very positive towards the Mac, especially when writing for a PC audience. I smell more professional switchers over the next year and more. People like my dad, who floored me recently when he said he was interested in getting a G5. He's always used Windows because his customers use that and it's what he knows. I always tried to sneak in comments about how good Macs are, but it never made sense for his business, so he never paid much attention. But nowadays he's using Photoshop a lot and he's interested in making his software cross platform, and when he heard about the G5, he took a serious interest. After taking him to the Apple Store and being very impressed with a single-proc G5 and the cinema display, I'm pretty sure he's going to get a dual-2.0 after Panther comes out. Articles like this can only mean more good stories of professional switchers...

[DeusOmnis]

I think it's great how IBM has a long-term business strategy for the Apple line, all I see are a bunch of huge improvements over the next few years. I havnt heard anything about AMD or Intel, but I guess i dont listen that hard. I will be getting my next computer in 2 years (have to wait 3 years on a computer since i'm a college student, lol) and i'd really like to see it wipe the floor w/ x86. It's a really exciting time to be a part of the apple community right now. And for ppl like me, ppl who were here before the G3, it's so.... it's a huge relief....

[DeusOmnis]

Originally posted by bankshot
Sheesh. Step away from the RDF... :rolleyes:

First, that PC Preferred page was so misinterpreted by the Mac fanatics. It was meant as "Do you prefer a PC? That's ok, because Photoshop works well on that too." NOT as "We think you should use a PC for Photoshop because we say the Mac sucks." Huge difference there.

Yes, Adobe was probably pissed about FCE destroying their market for Premiere, but I personally see no evidence to suggest that this affected their stance with regard to Photoshop or other products on Mac. Remember, Adobe is a large company, and different product groups may have very different goals or attitudes with regards to PC vs Mac. But I could be wrong...

Of course there's plenty of optimization that could help on both platforms, but I doubt the outcome is as certain as you suggest. I imagine both could be sped up to some degree, and it's hard to know what that amount is when it hasn't been completed!

And yes, Adobe has more incentive to optimize for PC since that represent a larger percentage of their market these days. It just makes financial sense. But that doesn't necessarily mean they spend that much more time on the PC version (I have no idea), and the conclusion that they must "hate" Apple and Mac users is a bit silly. :D

Sorry for that little rant... ;)

That said, I like the overall message of the article. It seems very positive towards the Mac, especially when writing for a PC audience. I smell more professional switchers over the next year and more. People like my dad, who floored me recently when he said he was interested in getting a G5. He's always used Windows because his customers use that and it's what he knows. I always tried to sneak in comments about how good Macs are, but it never made sense for his business, so he never paid much attention. But nowadays he's using Photoshop a lot and he's interested in making his software cross platform, and when he heard about the G5, he took a serious interest. After taking him to the Apple Store and being very impressed with a single-proc G5 and the cinema display, I'm pretty sure he's going to get a dual-2.0 after Panther comes out. Articles like this can only mean more good stories of professional switchers...

I'll think you'll find the situation is a little worse than one would expect...

[daveL]

Originally posted by mcdawson
I think the wild card is the suite of tests being run. Time and time again, PC people can (and do) pick a different set of tests and "trounce" the Mac. What was important--and surprised the PC Mag--was that THEIR set of tests showed that the Mac was equal to or better than the PC. The first time in recent history that has EVER happened. For them to say it was (just about) equal is the highest praise!

I doubt a different config (more RAM, Panther) would significantly effect the results. Pather could help, but only to the degree that an app like Photoshop talks to it. For example, if Photoshop loads its data into memory and crunches it and that data crunching is the majority of ithe time, then Panther won't help much. What would probably help more is Adobe or Lightwave doing more optimization on their side. However, since the dual G4 beats the PC in the Acrobat tests, I would guess that means that the system is helping out. Since the system seems to be helping, I would guess that Panther would improve those scores even more.

In some tests, the Mac probably will never win, as those can be ones where MHz DOES matter. For all the talk that MHz doesn't matter, it can. If that PC's CPU is kepting crunching and there's no Altivec shortcut available, the Mac (in this case) would always be 50% slower (2 GHz vs 3 GHz). That doesn't happen often, which is why the G5 can run so close in performance.
First, Panther improves memory performance by a fair margin, and Photoshop is very memory intensive, so Panther should have a positive influence on these test scores.

Second, Panther's PDF performance is absolutely astounding compared to Jaguar or Acrobat.

Lastly, the G5 is 33% slower (3 GHz vs 2GHz), not 50% slower. Looking at it the other way around, the Xeon is 50% faster than the G5. We're just talking clock frequency here.

[Makosuke]

In response to the comments along the lines of this being an unfair test, I'd tend to disagree (although I do agree that not using a script that counts the filter start time is stupid). If you ignore the testing irregularities (which at least they pointed out), the test involved several pieces of real-world cross-platform software, run on two similarly configured computers.

No, they weren't both maxed out to give the edge to the Mac because it supports more RAM, but that wasn't necessarily what they were testing--they were testing a realistic config (keep in mind that loading the G5 up with 8GB will cost a huge amount of money, and most users just won't) on files in the size range that most people are probably working with.

If you're one of the small number of people who need that 8GB of RAM right now, then you'll be loving the G5, but otherwise your speed will probably be bound by the processor and other subsystems, so that's what they tested.

So what the tests showed, at least as far as I can see, was that a well configured G5 was at least as fast as, if not faster than, a top-of-the-line Dell workstation right now, and it costs a little less. That's cool enough for me.

Of course, the other cool thing about the G5 is that it will continue to get faster over the next few months as more optimized software is released. That doesn't mean that a comparitive benchmark right now is invalid, since that optimized software isn't avalable--I and everybody else who's not a professional developer will be using 10.2.7 and mostly-unoptimized software for at least another few months. But it does mean that you're getting even better speed value for your G5 dollar than it looks like if you look at the long term.

Similar to the situation with the early G4s, before much was altivec-enhanced.

Hey, how often do you buy a computer that's going to seem faster as time goes by, instead of slower?

[daveL]

Originally posted by DeusOmnis
The P4 pipeline takes about 3x as many clock cycles to do a single calculation, so if the program must wait on that calculation before preceeding, then it effectively gets cut to 1/3 the speed due to the pipeline.

Of couse the pipeline also does 3x as many calculations simultaneously, but unless it has around (21?) different calculations to do at the same time, it's not going to have all those steps full. Most likely the large pipeline creates a large amount of "bubbles" where there isnt any work being done. THIS EFFECTIVELY REDUCES THE CLOCK SPEED.

So what I'm saying is... yes, mhz does matter, but only if your processor is designed in such a way that it can use it. The P4 is not designed in a way to use all of it's power efficiently.

BTW, has anyone heard anything about the P5? The P4 has been out for a while now...
Just to clarify, Xeon's are P3s, not P4s.

[ffakr]

Originally posted by macrumors12345
Well, keep in mind that on tasks that make heavy use of Altivec, the G5 is not much faster clock for clock than the G4. Its only advantage for Altivec tasks is the high-bandwidth bus; the longer pipelines hurt it, and the G5 Altivec unit itself is actually slightly inferior to the MPC 745x Altivec unit (it uses the MPC 7400 Altivec unit, the one on the original G4). But this isn't a very bad thing, because remember that the G4's vector performance was already outstanding (this was in the only area in which the G4 could consistently match or beat the P4).

This isn't exactly true, and this thinking is being perpetuated, unfortunately.

The comparatively lack luster performance of the G5 Altivec was started by comments from Arstechnica's Hannibal. He gathered as much pre-release information and made the observation that the Altivec units were 'tacked on' late in the design process.
When more data was made availalbe, and especially after talking to the 970 project managers, he said he was mistaken and that, although somewhat different, the altivec implementation on the G5 didn't look nearly as bad as he once thought.

In truth, the G5 will be an Altivec monster once code is optimized for the G5. If I remember correctly, the G5 prefetches data for the SIMD units differently than the G4. If you run G4 [simd] optimized code on a G5 you are starving the registers.
Once Altivec heavy apps are fully optimized for the G5, they will run WAY faster than on the G4. I think we'll have to wait until Photoshop 8 to see what the G5 can really do.

[tam]

Originally posted by daveL
Just to clarify, Xeon's are P3s, not P4s.
Eh, no, not on those ones. They stopped being P3s around 1.5 GHz. P3 and G4 scale about the same in clock, G5 goes higher and P4 even more so.

I'm looking forward to more tests from magazines that usually don't test stuff from Apple, the future is indeed looking bright.

Also about workstation graphics, the difference isn't as big as it used to be, both in performance and price. What you pay for is the drivers specially tweaked for programs like solidworks, where they make a huge difference.

[Macco]

Originally posted by panphage

#1 Ram: The Dell has four sticks of 512MB DDR266. The Apple has two sticks of 1024MB DDR400. The Dell memory is ECC. So, costwise, prolly not too different. Go to 2x1024MB sticks in the dell and you're talking about an extra $629. ouch. (Can someone tell me what NECC is? It was an option on the dell but didn't change the price.)


ECC, I believe, has something to do with error-checking on RAM. It's something you don't really need unless you're using your machine as a server or have some other use for error-checking. Standard computer memory is NECC.

[Belly-laughs]

Correct me if I´m wrong but doesn´t the performance table clerly state that the Dell is faster overall in the PS7 tests? I know loading the filter wasn´t concidered part of it, but still, the number crunching (filter execution) is faster on the Dell on most tests.

Time in seconds (12 tests):

G5 131.01
Dell 102.50
G4 187.47

Now, that´s half a minute faster!

[Genie]

Originally posted by Belly-laughs
Correct me if I´m wrong but doesn´t the performance table clerly state that the Dell is faster overall in the PS7 tests?
Time in seconds (12 tests):

G5 131.01
Dell 102.50
G4 187.47

Now, that´s half a minute faster!

Could be, but the Dell's more expensive, and slower overall.
http://www.geniesongs.com/genie/endorsements/apple/Genie-G5Computer50pix.jpg (http://geniesongs.com/personal.html)

[stevesien]

Not to be negative but.....my new G5 arrived, finally, last night. The machine is beautiful, quiet and fast (1.8gz) but I agree strongly with this statement from the Article from PC mag...

"Unfortunately, the G5 also ships with the standard unremarkable keyboard and one-button mouse, which look and feel more out of date with each main system update."

the Keyboard is especially toylike, though perfectly functional and the white doesn't match anymore either. As for the anachronistic 1 butt mouse I won't even take it out of the box. A shame. I do not understand why APPLE seems to blow off the peripherals, they work OK but they are not as special as the rest of the package. this was even more true with the older PowerMacs and the small original iMac-type keyboards.
FWIW
Steve

[eatme8888]

I guess there aren't any Lightwave users here, because PCMag's Lightwave results are completely flawed. Their numbers are half of what you see PCs and Macs are getting at www.blanos.com (Chris' Lightwave Benchmarks).

This is what I think PCMag did wrong - they didn't set the number of threads higher than 1. Lightwave requires you to manually set the number of threads, and people with dual processors set Lightwave to 4 or 8 threads. The default is 1, so those dual processors systems PCMag tried to benchmark gave very slow scores.

Very sloppy.

Their Photoshop benchmark is completely bogus. They didn't use PSBench7, they used their own list of filters, and they didn't use a few filters that are normally included that do very well on the Mac. They didn't normalize the score either. Right now, on Ars Technica, they have normalized PSBench7 results from the dual 2 Ghz G5 and it's much faster than the dual 3.06 Ghz Xeon. Just doing a bunch of filters and then adding up the score is completely idiotic. You have to normalize it.

Very sloppy.

What's the price of the Dell, PCMag? They are happy to show us how expensive Macs are in the past, but not now? Could it be because the Mac is a lot less expensive?

1 meg cache Xeons or 512K cache Xeons in that Dell?

Controls refers to the dialog that comes up when you choose the filter. So you make a selection, then you select the filter from the menu, then the "controls" come up. 1 minute to wait for that dialog to come up is an incredibly horrible thing, and PCMag would have made a bigger deal of it if that happened on the Mac.

After Effects is much faster on the G5 than the PC.

Squeeze is much faster on the G5 than the PC.

Acrobat is much faster on the G5 than the PC.

Photoshop is much faster on the G5 than the PC.

And wait until Panther comes out, which is showing huge improvements in speeds.

And this time next year we will be at 3 Ghz - 50% faster!

[Genie]

Yeah eatme8888

RIGHT ON!!!

G5 RULES!http://www.geniesongs.com/genie/endorsements/apple/Genie-G5Computer50pix.jpg (http://geniesongs.com/personal.html)

[eatme8888]

You just spent $2K for a computer. Stop bitching and spend another $30 for a mouse you like and $30 on a keyboard you like.

The two-button mouse that comes with a PC sucks too. I throw that out and get a 5-button or 10-button Logitech/Kensington mouse. The huge keyboard that sits in front of my Gateway sucks too, with large buttons like "Email" "Web", that are retarded.

[eatme8888]

A 32 bit OS with 64 bit data paths and addressing, with an 8 gig limit, giving 4 gigs per process.

[sjk]

Originally posted by stevesien
the Keyboard is especially toylike, though perfectly functional and the white doesn't match anymore either.Is there a decent non-Apple alternative? The keyboard on my iBook is okay, tho' I prefer the Happy Hacking keyboard on my Suns.As for the anachronistic 1 butt mouse I won't even take it out of the box. A shame.For the basic things my wife does with a computer I'm sure she'll be happy with a unibutton mouse when she gets a Mac (which I mentioned to her just before reading your post). It make me uncomfortable just watching her fumble with a two-button mouse on Windows.I do not understand why APPLE seems to blow off the peripherals, they work OK but they are not as special as the rest of the package.Maybe it's time Jonathon Ive started designing Apple keyboards? Or if he already does maybe it's his worst best-kept secret? ;)

[Analog Kid]

Where do folks expect to see speedups with Panther?

I can't imagine that Adobe is relying on the Apple frameworks to do the heavy lifting of Photoshop... I'm sure those algorithms are all custom coded.

No industrial app uses the standard OS memory alloc routines, they'll just grab a big chunk once and dole it out in a way that's efficient for the particular app, at least for Carbon apps.

I guess it'll make more memory available, but benchmarks like these aren't using it.

I can imagine Panther speeding up the GUI and system utility applications, but I don't know how it'll change these kinds of benchmarks appreciably...

Improvements will have to come by optimizing the individual apps, right?

[Analog Kid]

Originally posted by eatme8888

Very sloppy.


Yeah, I was a little disturbed by the comment that when using the smaller image files both platforms completed too quickly to time...

Were they timing with a stopwatch?!

Very sloppy...

[mvc]

Originally posted by Analog Kid
Yeah, I was a little disturbed by the comment that when using the smaller image files both platforms completed too quickly to time...

Were they timing with a stopwatch?!

Very sloppy...

Naah One One Hundred, Two One Hundred, Three One Hundred…etc etc

[ibjoshua]

Originally posted by mvc
Naah One One Hundred, Two One Hundred, Three One Hundredetc etc

hee hee :)

i_b_joshua

[F/reW/re]

Originally posted by odenshaw
didn't jobs say something about how preview is way faster than acrobat anyway.
That would mean the mac would win by even more!!!

anyway, because who uses acrobat anyway? hahahaaa
yeah baby, My iBook Dual USB 500MHz with panther displays pdf's using Preview way faster than my AMD 1800+ ;) Preview in Panther is FAST

[Cubeboy]

Originally posted by DeusOmnis
The P4 pipeline takes about 3x as many clock cycles to do a single calculation, so if the program must wait on that calculation before preceeding, then it effectively gets cut to 1/3 the speed due to the pipeline.

Of couse the pipeline also does 3x as many calculations simultaneously, but unless it has around (21?) different calculations to do at the same time, it's not going to have all those steps full. Most likely the large pipeline creates a large amount of "bubbles" where there isnt any work being done. THIS EFFECTIVELY REDUCES THE CLOCK SPEED.

So what I'm saying is... yes, mhz does matter, but only if your processor is designed in such a way that it can use it. The P4 is not designed in a way to use all of it's power efficiently.

BTW, has anyone heard anything about the P5? The P4 has been out for a while now...

You act as if each instruction has to wait until the previous instruction has been retired. Haven't you realized that the whole point of pipelining is to ensure that instructions don't need to wait to be fetched/decoded/executed/retired before the previous instruction is retired?

Really, the only time a Pentium 4 is going to be at a disadvantage to a shorter pipelined cpu (i.e G4) is when you have dependent instructions and even than the difference is rendered meaningless by the Pentium 4's much larger 126 instruction Out of Order Window (compared to the G4's 16 instruction OOW).

[fourthtunz]

Originally posted by Belly-laughs
Correct me if I´m wrong but doesn´t the performance table clerly state that the Dell is faster overall in the PS7 tests? I know loading the filter wasn´t concidered part of it, but still, the number crunching (filter execution) is faster on the Dell on most tests.

Time in seconds (12 tests):

G5 131.01
Dell 102.50
G4 187.47

Now, that´s half a minute faster!

In the real world any waiting sucks while you're trying to work right? Waiting for tools to load is still waiting.
If they had the G5's energy saver thingy on auto it would be slower.
In the real world people would load the machines up with Ram, they would be multitasking, they would be working with larger images.
I'm glad to see that the pc mag gave any kind of a nod to the G5 and no test can be run where someone won't cry foul, but it is clear they were not interested in really pushing these machines to see what they would do in the real world.
Just the tip of the iceburg for the G5!:D
daniel

[eatme8888]

Correct me if I´m wrong but doesn´t the performance table clerly state that the Dell is faster overall in the PS7 tests?

PCMag just timed the individual filters and and added up the scores, which is a very flawed method of testing. You should normalize the score. Let's say a single filter is slower on the Mac than the PC, but it's a filter that takes a long time to complete. If you just add up the total time, that one filter affects the score by an uneven amount. So you normalize the score, which is what the folks at Ars Technica have done.

Also, PCMag didn't include three filters that are much, much faster on the Mac - Despeckle, Pointillize, and Radial Blur, which are all included in the PSBench7.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by daveL
Just to clarify, Xeon's are P3s, not P4s.

Incorrect. Xeon, like Celeron, is a bit of a "whatever fits" nameplate, and have in the past been based off the P3 architecture. However, current Xeons are based on the current P4 design (with the multi-proc bits added in, of course).

[Chad]

well this is from a guy who is all PC
wife is on a Mac
I started on Macs from the first 128K one and was always smiling when I used it ;) and went through many Macs after that but around the win95 area I switched as I felt Mac lost it
I want that smile back when I use a puter

anyway I am a photographer for a living and the one thing funny was the guy said that if they included the load times the Mac would have won ??? well idiot put the load times in there should have put in start time and end time etc....

I am truly happy the Mac will now have a fast machine again and hope to be getting one here in the not to near future ;)
but I will still work on a PC for some aps such as C1

also true about the Xeon is a p4 core also the new p4 3.2 extreme is a Xeon ;)

anyway fun to read the tests for sure

[Genie]

I compared and the G5 is faster than any other similarly priced computer...
http://www.geniesongs.com/genie/endorsements/apple/Genie-G5Computer50pix.jpg (http://geniesongs.com/personal.html)