PDA

View Full Version : This G5 is still too slow for the money


jrapczak
Oct 7, 2003, 03:49 PM
I'm sorry guys, I love a lot of things about this G5 but it's just too slow for the money. I was having some speed issues awhile back with software that was arguably not optimized for OS X and the G5, but recently I started using Shake 3 on the Mac and it's SO SLOW compared to Shake 2.5 on a slower-clocked PC. This is Apple's own software, guys.

So here's what I have:

G5 1.8
2.5 GB RAM
GeForceFX 5200

I'm not sure what the RAM upgrades cost, but the overall system cost is probably close to $3000.

Bottom line? This thing may be faster in the future, maybe even by the end of 2004. But right now it doesn't even beat out a slower-clocked Athlon with less RAM in most real-world applications that we use for film post. There are no good video cards for this platform for 3D work.
(NOTE: The Radeon 9800 Pro is NOT a good video card for 3D work - aside from the fact that it adds even MORE cost to the system, this is a consumer-level graphics board that lacks many features and stability enhancements of its workstation-class implementation, the FireGL X2. I am speaking from personal experience, not marketing hype.)

No one in their right mind would buy a G5 right now in my industry, especially when you can get a much-faster Dual Xeon 2.8 with 2 GB RAM and a workstation-class graphics board for around $2,000, which is what we've just purchased to replace this G5 I'm returning to the Apple store on Wednesday.

Maybe it will be faster next year...

Lancetx
Oct 7, 2003, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by jrapczak
No one in their right mind would buy a G5 right now in my industry, especially when you can get a much-faster Dual Xeon 2.8 with 2 GB RAM and a workstation-class graphics board for around $2,000, which is what we've just purchased to replace this G5 I'm returning to the Apple store on Wednesday.


Just was wondering where you can get a Dual processor Xeon 2.8 system with 2GB RAM and a good workstation graphics card for $2,000 at? I haven't seen them anywhere near that price from a major manufacturer anyway.

--EDIT--

I just went and priced a Dell Precision 450 workstation with dual 2.8s and only 1GB of RAM and it totaled out to over $2,900...

jrapczak
Oct 7, 2003, 04:58 PM
Ok, to be fair you have to buy the parts yourself to put it together. This consists of a motherboard\pc\ram bundle that comes already set up with fans, heatsinks and everything and you just plop it in to a case. Comes with a warranty:

Dual Xeon motherboard bundles with integrated Audio, USB 2.0, Firewire, Serial ATA and Gigabit ethernet:

http://www.jncs.com/index-google.asp?page=../content/xeonbuns.htm

Now you are free to buy a video card of your choosing. A good example is the FireGL T2 128 (based on the Radeon 9600 chipset) available, for example, here:

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproduct.asp?DEPA=1&submit=Go&description=FireGL

All that's left to buy is a case and an optical drive, and you can have a nice workstation for under $2000. The only thing you are sacrificing is having all parts warrantied from a single manufacturer. However, the critical parts (mobo, processor, RAM) all come as a bundle from the same place already assembled and are under the same warranty.

I understand that this probably doesn't work for everyone, but maybe I would feel different about this whole situation if I could assemble my own G5 system from parts I buy myself. But this is totally against everything Apple.

BTW, that Dell Precision 2.8 with 1GB ram is still cheaper than a dual G5 that, at this point in its life-cycle (as I have already said) does not perform as well in most of our real-world tests. Sure, we could buy for the future... betting that Apple's G5 will one day come out on top. But that's not really how this industry works.

Dont Hurt Me
Oct 7, 2003, 05:01 PM
g5's are not using full 64 bit os yet nor apps. when panther hits and apps optimize for g5 everything will be in the rear view mirror.

-hh
Oct 7, 2003, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by jrapczak
Ok, to be fair you have to buy the parts yourself to put it together. This consists of a motherboard\pc\ram bundle that comes already set up with fans, heatsinks and everything and you just plop it in to a case.

And how long does this really take? Let's not forget installing the OS onto the hard drive, etc, etc.

For the labor cost, let's assume $100/hour, to make sure that we get a fully burdened generic Corporate cost.

And if it requires the Purchasing department to make multiple awards, that's another few hundred bucks in hidden costs to account for there.


-hh

Sun Baked
Oct 7, 2003, 05:14 PM
If a single piece of software is critical to your workflow and the render speed is quite important TODAY, then by all means don't use the Mac if it puts a crimp in the workflow.

Sometimes the headaches of dealing with MS's problems are easier than dealing with a complaining employee.

jrapczak
Oct 7, 2003, 05:21 PM
No it won't. Few applications are going to be optimized for 64 bit, and it's not a 64-bit OS anyway. Sure, the G5 may be fast, but you can't speak for software vendors and whether or not they will take full advantage of it. It won't be a priority to them unless they're going to make a lot of money doing it, and they're not going to make money unless there's a considerable user-base to make money from. There won't be a considerable user base until the applications actually RUN faster on a G5.

It's a vicious circle.

The whole industry isn't going to switch from Linux and NT on PCs to a slower-performing system to encourage software companies to take full advantage of the G5.

So again, the G5 is great, but no matter how advanced it is it doesn't mean ANYTHING unless the software runs quickly on it. And while the software is catching up to the new architecture of the G5, do you think that AMD and Intel are going to sit around twiddling their thumbs?

There's too much uncertainty. The film industry will always go with what gives them the most power for the least money and development\integration cost at the time it is needed. Only the big studios will make investments into developing on new platforms, but they're not going to change their entire pipeline overnight.

Laslo Panaflex
Oct 7, 2003, 05:23 PM
I cannot vouch for the speed of a single 1.8 G5, but as for my dual 2 gig, it is by far the fastest computer I have ever used.
I think that if you are going to use shake you will need at least the dualie to get decent performance. All I can say is that you are disatisfied, try to sell that one and upgrade to a daulie, I bet you will see a huge dfference.

Just this weekend I exported my first FCP project with this machine. It was a 12 minute sequence that consisted of 120 scanned pictures in crosfading and zooming in and out (kind of like ken burns effect). I exported it through compressor and did a fast Mpeg2 encode. It took only 15 minutes to encode to MPeg 2 the 12 minute sequence. Needless to say I am pretty floored with the performance of this baby, and its stock with 512 megs of ram.

So this might not be much help, but if you want a faster mac, go with the dual.

QCassidy352
Oct 7, 2003, 05:24 PM
the dual G5 is the only one truly competitive with high end PCs right now. Perhaps that will change in the next revision, but I'm not surprised to hear that a SP G5 is slower than a dual xeon.

jrapczak
Oct 7, 2003, 05:32 PM
If a single piece of software is critical to your workflow and the render speed is quite important TODAY, then by all means don't use the Mac if it puts a crimp in the workflow.

Sometimes the headaches of dealing with MS's problems are easier than dealing with a complaining employee.


Guys, it's not a single piece of software, it's several pieces of software including:

Alias Maya
mental images mental ray
Apple Shake
Discreet Combustion

This is basically the entire pipeline!

Secondly, this has nothing to do with MS. WinXP is a horrible operating system and has too many problems with memory management. For this reason, our render farm and several workstations are Linux. The only time we use WinXP is for software that doesn't run on Linux. Please don't turn this into an Apple vs. Microsoft thread because it isn't. it's about Apple Hardware vs. Intel and AMD hardware, and the software that runs on it.

And how long does this really take? Let's not forget installing the OS onto the hard drive, etc, etc.


Assembling workstations takes a few hours for the first one and then the rest are created with a disk image because it is assumed you're buying multiple identical parts at the same time if you're buying more than one. So really it can take a few hours total per workstation to assemble and test. But this is what we have technical officers for. We're paying them anyway, so they might as well be doing something useful when the network is running smoothly :)

acj
Oct 7, 2003, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Laslo Panaflex
I cannot vouch for the speed of a single 1.8 G5, but as for my dual 2 gig, it is by far the fastest computer I have ever used.
I think that if you are going to use shake you will need at least the dualie to get decent performance. All I can say is that you are disatisfied, try to sell that one and upgrade to a daulie, I bet you will see a huge dfference.

Just this weekend I exported my first FCP project with this machine. It was a 12 minute sequence that consisted of 120 scanned pictures in crosfading and zooming in and out (kind of like ken burns effect). I exported it through compressor and did a fast Mpeg2 encode. It took only 15 minutes to encode to MPeg 2 the 12 minute sequence. Needless to say I am pretty floored with the performance of this baby, and its stock with 512 megs of ram.

So this might not be much help, but if you want a faster mac, go with the dual.

Interesting. I have a speed comparison, sorta. But what res were your photos? I did the same thing in premiere on a 2.4 GHz P4 with 512 ram. It took about 2 hours for just 24 minutes of mpeg2 exported, but many of my pictures were 55 megs, and there were often 3 images visable zooming and panning at once, plus a little video. It went very slow when there were 3 full res photos, but when it was only two at lower res, it was almost real time, even on a single slower CPU.

jrapczak
Oct 7, 2003, 05:34 PM
he dual G5 is the only one truly competitive with high end PCs right now. Perhaps that will change in the next revision, but I'm not surprised to hear that a SP G5 is slower than a dual xeon.

Somehow this got lost in all of this mess, but the original speed comparison was between a SINGLE 1.8 G5 and a SINGLE 2000+ (really 1.6) Athlon.

Sun Baked
Oct 7, 2003, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by jrapczak
Guys, it's not a single piece of software, it's several pieces of software including:For some it may indeed come down to 1 piece of software in the workflow, that may mean PC hardware or even a Windows PC -- gasp.

When time is money, use whatever OS and H/W you company feels will improve the profit margin the most.

The Mac is a good machine, but not the best solution for everyone.

mmathis
Oct 7, 2003, 06:17 PM
I'm a student filmmaker, and I don't use shake for anything yet, but I use FCP a lot, and I can tell you one thing: my dual 2.0 G5 is by far, faster than any other computer I've ever used for rendering and exporting video. I just got it yesterday, and I'm blown away. I can't imagine using anything else right now. As has been said before, there are different solutions for different people. It's perfectly understandable to me that a G5 wouldn't be the premier choice for everyone out there. There's no way that it could run everything faster than everyone else. But count me in as one truly satisfied G5 owner =)

Laslo Panaflex
Oct 7, 2003, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by acj
Interesting. I have a speed comparison, sorta. But what res were your photos? I did the same thing in premiere on a 2.4 GHz P4 with 512 ram. It took about 2 hours for just 24 minutes of mpeg2 exported, but many of my pictures were 55 megs, and there were often 3 images visable zooming and panning at once, plus a little video. It went very slow when there were 3 full res photos, but when it was only two at lower res, it was almost real time, even on a single slower CPU.

Oh no, my pictures were not anywhere near the res that you are talking about, they were scanned at 300 dpi and were on the average of 5-6 megs a piece, no where near 55 megs. Really, there is no need to go that high unless you are zooming in real close. In my case it was not that crucial to zoom in.

I will do a test with some higher res pics and let you know.

Flowbee
Oct 7, 2003, 06:31 PM
So this is basically another "I-can-build-a-fast-PC-cheaper-than-I-can-buy-a-Mac" thread? Fascinating.

mmmdreg
Oct 7, 2003, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by Flowbee
So this is basically another "I-can-build-a-fast-PC-cheaper-than-I-can-buy-a-Mac" thread? Fascinating.

Leave him alone already. If he thinks a PC is best, let him be. It's like I did work experience at an advertising agency. Nearly the whole place used Macs ranging from revb iMacs to dual G5's. The only things that were PC were the server, the computer on the printer and the chief accounting guy's computer. Why? Because either the software wouldn't run on Macs, or the PC was just better suited to the tasks. If people can't see two views on any matter, then they're just being ignorant. And don't try accusing me of being a Mac-basher either hunnibuns. I'm on a Mac now and loving it :P

Schiffi
Oct 7, 2003, 07:38 PM
Yeah, building your own PC is extremely cheaper initially. However, having to devote every Saturday to do maintenance was terrible. I do like Premiere over FCE but due to stability in OSX, I went towards FCE and I'm adjusting. I like Premiere for the fact that I can multitask while rendering, something not attainable in FCE (though I can export DV quickly then encode in QT and still multitask pretty easily).

I hope you bought your RAM from crucial or another 3rd party vendor. Apple's prices are atrocious. With 512MB of RAM it costs about $2400 so you prolly did buy elsewhere. Oh well, different strokes for different folks.

yamabushi
Oct 7, 2003, 08:15 PM
While I am impressed with the dual G5, I can understand the desire for even more power. Apple should provide kit build tower Macs for the budget conscious. IBM should provide higher clock speeds ASAP to meet the most demanding of requirements such as rendering and encoding. Apple should also add a max speed mode in OSX that removes most of the GUI (somehing along the lines of dosshell in appearance) and other services such as networking for a bit of extra power, then a fast reboot to the full OS. I am sure that OS experts could find an even better way to do something like this. There will always be task specific computers that can do something faster, but Apple could find creative ways to close the gap.

ZildjianKX
Oct 7, 2003, 10:35 PM
I'm a recent switcher, and I love my G5. Only problem w/ macs is there is too big of a jump between the "consumer" and
"pro" lines. Honestly, I'd never get anything from the consumer lines since they just aren't competitive enough... and completely non-upgradeable... now the G5s are nice... :)

Mlobo01
Oct 7, 2003, 11:11 PM
Ill help you get rid of it.

LethalWolfe
Oct 8, 2003, 12:01 AM
For what jrapczak needs Macs typically aren't the better choice right now. It looks like they mainly do 3D and compositing work over at his shop and that is the weak link in Apple's assault on the creative field. As he said there is not a pro level 3D out there for the Mac, and even the current version of the dual gig G5 doesn't provide the real world muslce needed for some of these tasks. That's one reason why Avid hasn't made a Mac version of it's DS series editing workstations. The DS are an editing/compositing hybred machine and currently no Mac meets Avid's standards. Now of course everyone is asking Avid about a DS runing on a G5 but they are being tight lipped. I wouldn't be surpised though to see something at NAB '04. They will probably give the G5's another revision, and, assuming something is shown at NAB, it will probably be 6 months or so before products are actually for sale and that will mean at least one more G5 rev.

So, long story short the current G5 has brought the Mac closer to parity with Intel/AMD based machines, but there is still a long way to go. And assuming the roadmap Jobs has mentioned works out the next year is going to be an awesome one for Mac hardware.


Lethal

jrapczak
Oct 8, 2003, 11:54 AM
Okay, final question because I'm still not seeing some of this speed everyone is talking about:

Last night I did a test encoding MPEG-2 video through compressor. I was optimistic because someone in this thread had indicated that it had taken 15 minutes to encode 12 minutes of MPEG-2 out of Final Cut Pro on a dual 2.0, so I figured my single 1.8 wouldn't take longer than 30 minutes (assuming dual procs doesn't quite mean twice as much speed).

My encoding took 1 hour and 21 minutes on 15 minutes of DV footage. So finally I ask, is something wrong with my Mac? I am HONESTLY NOT SEEING ANY SPEED GAINS. This encoding speed is on par with the 2000+ Athlon using TMPGEnc. I can honestly say that I expected the G5 to come out with a commanding lead in this test, but it hasn't! What's the deal?

acj
Oct 8, 2003, 12:31 PM
oops

mico
Oct 8, 2003, 01:03 PM
I don't seem to understand your reasoning in using the mac if you can cheaply build a faster pc with the graphics card you know to be essential. You seem to know what you're talking about and I'm sure before you bought the mac you (or your company) checked the graphics card and realized it wasn't up to the level you needed. If the 9800 pro wasn't good enough and the Xeon faster why even consider buying the 1.8. And if you just wanted to use the mac platform why didn't you buy the fastest G5 if speed was so important. And if money was an issue with the Dual G5 why didn't you just build your $2000 pc in the first place and save yourself all this headache since you knew that you could have gotten a much faster Xeon 2.8 and the pro graphics card you needed for around - again - the cheaper price of $2000. There are several independent benchmark tests around that could have informed you on the speed of these machine.

Laslo Panaflex
Oct 8, 2003, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by jrapczak
My encoding took 1 hour and 21 minutes on 15 minutes of DV footage. So finally I ask, is something wrong with my Mac? I am HONESTLY NOT SEEING ANY SPEED GAINS.

Well it was me that posted those results, and it was not DV footage it was pictures with dissolves and motion. Which preset did you use in compressor? was it 60 min mpeg2 fast? or not a preset at all. I will get some DV footage in my machine here and encode a 15 min sample and post results. They more than likely will not be as fast as my other project.

bousozoku
Oct 8, 2003, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by ZildjianKX
I'm a recent switcher, and I love my G5. Only problem w/ macs is there is too big of a jump between the "consumer" and
"pro" lines. Honestly, I'd never get anything from the consumer lines since they just aren't competitive enough... and completely non-upgradeable... now the G5s are nice... :)

In June, people were whining that the lines were too close in power and features. ;)

I believe that with most higher end creative applications, we'll see PPC970 enhancements so that the G5 looks much better than it does now. Obviously, things that weren't AltiVec-enhanced should look better already, just because the floating point is so much faster. If things have been compiled with gcc, they will look better when compiled with the latest version.

cubist
Oct 8, 2003, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by -hh
And how long does this really take? Let's not forget installing the OS onto the hard drive, etc, etc.

For the labor cost, let's assume $100/hour, to make sure that we get a fully burdened generic Corporate cost.

And if it requires the Purchasing department to make multiple awards, that's another few hundred bucks in hidden costs to account for there.


For that matter, he didn't budget anything for Windows for that computer either. You ARE buying a copy of Windows for it, aren't you, jrapczak? :o

[edit] Oops, he said he uses Linux. Now the story gets even weirder - I didn't know you could get Maya and Shake for Linux.

MorganX
Oct 8, 2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by cubist
For that matter, he didn't budget anything for Windows for that computer either. You ARE buying a copy of Windows for it, aren't you, jrapczak? :o

[edit] Oops, he said he uses Linux. Now the story gets even weirder - I didn't know you could get Maya and Shake for Linux.

I think he's running Linux... If he was running XP Pro on it he could get it with the M/B for about $85.

Building your own workstation can save lots of money and give you much more power and it probably takes less than an hour.

I think he wants the Mac, just not right for this job.

Clones were the best thing to almost happen to the Mac platform. Unfortunately it wasn't in the best interest of Apple co.

He is wrong about one thing though, 64-bit computing will become mainstream within 2-years. AMD is putting a lot of pressuer on Intel. Intel didn't want to, but it's going to have to push up it's 64-bit desktop plans.

jrapczak
Oct 8, 2003, 04:38 PM
You're right, I DO want this Mac. I want it to work really bad, and I want it to be FAST! I'm not partial to any platform or OS - it's whatever helps me get the job done. All this marketing hype about "the worlds fastest desktop computer" and everything else really got my hopes up, along with the PRman tests and endorsements from a lot of prominent companies. But from what I can see, it just isn't there yet.

My preset for the MPEG-Encoding was 120-minute High-Quality.

Laslo Panaflex
Oct 9, 2003, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by jrapczak
My preset for the MPEG-Encoding was 120-minute High-Quality.

That also makes a big difference. That preset is a 2 pass VBR, and the one I did is a single pass. So, in thoery that would make my render time double for the same project. You should try the 60 minute fast preset, I bet you will get fast render time there with very little noticealbe quality loss,and the mpeg2 files will be smaller allowing you to put more footage on a DVD.

h'biki
Oct 9, 2003, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by jrapczak
I'm sorry guys, I love a lot of things about this G5 but it's just too slow for the money. I was having some speed issues awhile back with software that was arguably not optimized for OS X and the G5, but recently I started using Shake 3 on the Mac and it's SO SLOW compared to Shake 2.5 on a slower-clocked PC...

No one in their right mind would buy a G5 right now in my industry...

The speed complaint about Shake on the Mac vs PC is pretty common.

Nonetheless, post-houses are switching in droves to OS X for compositing.

Why?

The licence for Shake under OS X is HALF the price of the linux/pc licence and the OS X rendering licences are FREE.

So for the price of a dual Xeon PC + Shake, you can buy TWO dual G5s running Shake... and use one as part of a render clust. That's going to be faster than your dual Xeon :)

There's more to cost/performance than just the hardware.

The only effects houses that seem to be not switching to Shake and OS X are the ones that can afford to code their own packages (Digital Domain, Industrial Light + Magic, Animal Logic).

h'biki
Oct 9, 2003, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by jrapczak

My encoding took 1 hour and 21 minutes on 15 minutes of DV footage. So finally I ask, is something wrong with my Mac? I am HONESTLY NOT SEEING ANY SPEED GAINS. This encoding speed is on par with the 2000+ Athlon using TMPGEnc. I can honestly say that I expected the G5 to come out with a commanding lead in this test, but it hasn't! What's the deal?

2-Pass VBR with a high level of motion response. That's why it took so long :) You pay for MPEG encoding quality with time and lots of it on EITHER platform.

Mlobo01
Oct 9, 2003, 10:02 AM
Macs do hold their value quite nicely, if you are not satisfied with your machine, just bundle it on eBay and you will see you would only loose a couple a dollars, I posted my iBook and it fetched a reasonable price for a unit I purchased last november, if you are preocupied with speed and "getting the job done" then you are not getting the overall menatllity of obtaining an Apple computer, its not just a box that does the job! its the Overall experience of working with a modern operating system and having a piece of hardware that can be tailored to your needs and not just a box that can be found in any garbage bin anywhere. I have found many PC boxes in the street but never a Mac, try and sell any grey box on eBay. you would loose your patience and time. Benchmarks are posted all over the web about the G5s, I myself would like to get a 15'PB but reading some of the nuances and glitches I can postpone my purchase until revision B or when Panther ships with these units. You claim holds weak on the account that you needed to have educated yourself before buying any of these machines. you cannnot blame the machine, its you that needs to be addressed, if you are satisfied with working with a trincket windows box, then more power to you. What Apple offers is an opportunity to release you from being just another drone that needs to finish his or her job (you need to get this from the 1984 commercial), which is the general philosophy of Apple. Take action sell your unit an get a grey box of your convenience but dont make it seem like you have been duped!

Mlobo01
Oct 9, 2003, 10:09 AM
WE ALL SHOULD KNOW BY NOW THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THE DP 2G G5!
FOR THOSE THAT HAVE THE SINGLE 1.6 AND 1.8 THE TITLE OF FASTEST COMPUTER DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU SORRY! time to save and get the real deal

jrapczak
Oct 9, 2003, 01:49 PM
Nonetheless, post-houses are switching in droves to OS X for compositing.

Why?

The licence for Shake under OS X is HALF the price of the linux/pc licence and the OS X rendering licences are FREE.


I'm sorry, this just isn't true about medium to large post houses (like us - any place that has a need for 10+ licenses). If you're paying full price for a Linux Shake license you're getting ripped off. At RFX in Hollywood Linux licenses are the same price as the OS X license if you buy at least 10. You don't have to buy 10 GUI licenses, either. You can buy any combination of GUI and command-line licenses for Shake. If you're buying 10 licenses or more, chances are you already have a renderfarm of some sort, and statistically it isn't a bunch of Xserves. You aren't going to replace your entire renderfarm with Xserves, because all of your software doesn't run on the Mac. Sure, you could buy Xserves with the money you save and have it be a dedicated Shake render cluster, but then you can only render on the small number of Xserves that you could actually afford with the little money you saved on your OS X render licenses. Linux Shake licenses work for both Linux and OS X, which is not true of the OS X licenses, so you're actually getting more for your money when you purchase Linux Shake licenses. So the fact that render licenses for OS X are free is a moot point.

its the Overall experience of working with a modern operating system and having a piece of hardware that can be tailored to your needs and not just a box that can be found in any garbage bin anywhere.

Fair enough, the whole Apple "thing" is much different than being a Linux user and having a "gray box". I enjoy the G5 from a usability and aesthetic standpoint more than any computer I have used to date. However, our clients aren't going to care how much we love our computers if we just can't get the job done as quickly as someone else and for less money.

You claim holds weak on the account that you needed to have educated yourself before buying any of these machines.

We bought the G5 with the Apple Pro card, giving us a 30-day test drive and the ability to return it with no penalty, so under those circumstances it made much more sense for us to actually get the G5 ourselves and run it through several tests and actually use it in our workflow, instead of relying on benchmarks posted on the web. I'm not bitter about this. I don't feel "duped". I'm merely reporting our analysis of the G5 for our pipeline, and it's not as fast in general purpose use as our Linux and NT machines. I just thought it was going to be faster. I WANTED it to be faster. So maybe I am bitter, in a way, that it isn't.

2-Pass VBR with a high level of motion response. That's why it took so long You pay for MPEG encoding quality with time and lots of it on EITHER platform.

Touche.

The final result is that we are going to reevalute the G5 for our production pipeline in Spring and see how the apps are coming along. Until then, since we want and prefer a Mac for video editing and DVD authoring, we are going to get a much more cost-effective Dual G4 to serve that purpose.

Mlobo01
Oct 9, 2003, 09:05 PM
that when it comes to business matters the client will be dictating most of the efficiency, if you experience that any machine no matter what the platform is, if its faster than another then it only makes financial sense to go for the one that enables productivity, I speak out of my own experience of non-business, personal project oriented. Now these machines will eventually be more cost effective in a long-term goal. when 64 bit
OSs come around, and the Mgz myth will be put to death by a greater chip and the OS X architecture. The OS X vs W XP and the Moto vs Intel theme has been discussed here to no avail and it seems that all roads lead to these themes, if you look at productivity in terms of long oriented goals, take into account how many times have you re-install XP?, how many virus have you had to contend with? how many hours did you loose on account of an unstable OS? sum it up and look at in $ value. there has to be a balance I agree between Financial sensibility and aesthetic expression. what ever pattern is best suited for you only you know how it will affect you in the long run, but you need to step back and analyze these abstractions in order to really have concise options, eventually who ever makes the decisions will have to be confident in his or her final say-so.
and please disregard the teases about selling your machines, at the penalty of sounding obtuse I do really get the struggles of departments looking for the perfect balance of productivity and pleasure. no malice intended: Mario

jrapczak
Oct 9, 2003, 11:43 PM
no malice intended:
None inferred!

Thanks for all the comments, guys.

legion
Oct 10, 2003, 03:00 AM
jrapczak,

looking at your field and your location, would I be correct in guessing Rythmn & Hues is looking at G5s... :D

sorry, had to guess since you're in my area (plus they're big on Shake and using Linux boxes and I have friends working there)

pianojoe
Oct 10, 2003, 05:29 AM
I always felt comfortable with the fact that the manufacturers of my favourite OS know about my system configuration quite exactly - because the OS and the hardware comes from the same company. It's much easier for Apple to make their OS work on all relevant models than it is for Microsoft. (Please don't mention 10.2.8 right here.)

I consider this a major advantage.

reflex
Oct 10, 2003, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by Flowbee
So this is basically another "I-can-build-a-fast-PC-cheaper-than-I-can-buy-a-Mac" thread? Fascinating.

That's a bit unfair. When the G5's were announced, everybody was screaming for test results. When the first benchmark results came in, everyone wanted real-world tests done.

Now, when someone does some tests about his particular real-world situation, you dismiss them because the results aren't all that great and he mentions a pc is better at it?

Mlobo01
Oct 10, 2003, 07:28 AM
We have to step back and realize how Apple has used these two factors, If you look at how much people use their Lombards and Wall Sts laptops, how many people still get use of the B&W G3s
the design ideology has been one of Long term usage, look at how much Titanium laptops go for on auction and you will see that for the money these do retain it. people still use them way after they are discontinued, Im using a Blueberry imac DV that came out 3-4 years ago and its running smooth. I have heard others express that they thought they had purchased the fastest PC and a month later they look at Mgz specs on the wintel world and are floored, they dont understand that part of it is just one aspect of the processor and not necessarily an augmentation as a whole to their boxes, if you look at Apple, steadily they have upgraded their OS and so their peripherals such as USB 2.0 etc. So my point is that you may consider Time/money and performance right now in terms of speed but I invite you to change your perspective in seeing Time/money/performance in a period lets say 6-7 years where you will still have your G5 because new 64bit upgrades and superior inside craftsmanship because everything is been designed as a whole, so consider that and look at how may times you will have to change the inerds of a wintel machine in a period of 5 years or suffer its quick manufactured idiosyncracies?

twinturbo
Oct 10, 2003, 07:40 AM
Hey, it's true that the current versions of Shake run better on AMD/Intel hardware and Linux than the G5 and OSX-but not for long. At IBC Apple demoed a tweaked version of Shake for the G5 that was much faster than the same version running on a dual 3.06Ghz Xeon system. So for those people not satisfied with the current performance of FCP and Shake on the G5, software updates are coming down the pike that will give both programs quite a speed boost.

This comes from the Highend2d Shake Listserv:
At the IBC tradeshow in Amsterdam last month, Apple showed a technology demo of an optimized version of Shake running on a dual 2GHz G5. On average, this optimized version ran performance tests faster than Shake on a dual 3GHz Xeon system running RH linux. The performance tests used real-world scripts as well as individual node tests.
There is no release date set for this optimized version.

3-22
Oct 10, 2003, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by jrapczak
Okay, final question because I'm still not seeing some of this speed everyone is talking about:

Last night I did a test encoding MPEG-2 video through compressor. I was optimistic because someone in this thread had indicated that it had taken 15 minutes to encode 12 minutes of MPEG-2 out of Final Cut Pro on a dual 2.0, so I figured my single 1.8 wouldn't take longer than 30 minutes (assuming dual procs doesn't quite mean twice as much speed).

My encoding took 1 hour and 21 minutes on 15 minutes of DV footage. So finally I ask, is something wrong with my Mac? I am HONESTLY NOT SEEING ANY SPEED GAINS. This encoding speed is on par with the 2000+ Athlon using TMPGEnc. I can honestly say that I expected the G5 to come out with a commanding lead in this test, but it hasn't! What's the deal?

You may have something wrong, I can encode video fast as hell on my dual G5. I would think the 1.8's woudln't be that shappy.. When you start encoding do your hear the processor slew up? (Fans start really spinning fast..) What is your cpu running at during the encoding? How much memory do you have? My G5 kills my old Althon...

ZildjianKX
Oct 10, 2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Mlobo01
WE ALL SHOULD KNOW BY NOW THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THE DP 2G G5!
FOR THOSE THAT HAVE THE SINGLE 1.6 AND 1.8 THE TITLE OF FASTEST COMPUTER DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU SORRY! time to save and get the real deal

Real deal? If you don't do heavy encoding with your powermac, you will see negligable difference between the 1.8 and the dual G5, especially for games if you upgrade the 1.8 to a Radeon 9600 Pro.

Buy a 1.8 GHz G5, 40 gig iPod, more RAM... more bang for your buck and you won't feel so bad when the dual 2.0 is no longer top of the line :)

Laslo Panaflex
Oct 10, 2003, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by ZildjianKX
Real deal? If you don't do heavy encoding with your powermac, you will see negligable difference between the 1.8 and the dual G5, especially for games if you upgrade the 1.8 to a Radeon 9600 Pro.

Buy a 1.8 GHz G5, 40 gig iPod, more RAM... more bang for your buck and you won't feel so bad when the dual 2.0 is no longer top of the line :)

You are right, for games this is no big difference its with the video card, but for rendering and encoding there is a HUGE difference. That is what this thread is about, the 1.8 doesn't seem to hold up to the dual 2 when it comes to high end video production.

P.S. the world's fastest personal computer would be the dual G5 since it is the fastest of them hence in my opinion as well making it the "real deal".