PDA

View Full Version : Pentium 4 vs Athlon 64 vs G5 Benchmarked


straphound
Oct 14, 2003, 06:49 PM
This PC World article focuses on the future of 64-bit computing and the new Athlon 64 and Athlon FX processors from AMD. They benchmark the dual G5 at the end of the article on some common test. According to PC World, the Athlon is substantially faster. They also seem to think that the dual G5 is not a good value. They worked with Macworld on these tests.

"Apple touts its new 64-bit Power Mac G5 as the world's fastest personal computer, but our initial tests indicate bragging rights may belong to PCs using AMD's Athlon 64 FX-51 chip." Take with a grain of salt...


"Even Apple's 2-GHz dual-CPU G5 unit had a hard time keeping up with a single-chip FX-51 PC in most tests. (Tests were not exhaustive, however: Working with our sibling publication, Macworld, we selected four applications available on both platforms and then ran seven hand-timed tests. Our test suite, PC WorldBench 4, cannot run on Macs.) The new Macs aren't great values either, as the top-of-the-line G5 ($3549 as configured) costs about $200 more than the similarly configured Alienware Aurora. (Prices do not include a monitor or speakers.)"

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,1,00.asp

Fins160
Oct 14, 2003, 07:05 PM
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,8,00.asp

This is pretty sad for apple - it got spanked.

MacBytes
Oct 14, 2003, 11:45 PM
Category: Benchmarks
Link: PCWORLD and MacWorld put AMD, Apple and Intel 64 bit computing and test them head to head.... (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,1,00.asp)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by arn

gerardrj
Oct 15, 2003, 12:29 AM
In the benchmarks table they state "...into the QuickTime format."
That's about as useful as saying you own a Ford.
Quicktime format could be any of about 12 video codecs and about 8 audio codecs, each of which have a plethora of settings. There must be about 5000 different "QuickTime formats" once you combine all the settings in all the codecs.

Is this just plain ignorance on the part of the PCWorld testers that they don't "get" the openness and flexibility of QuickTime?
From the specs I might assume they rendered to DV (720x480), but the 30fps throws me as you would usually render DV to 29.97fps for proper NTSC playback.

twentyeight7
Oct 15, 2003, 06:55 AM
i like how no one replys to bad things.... its funny :D

Gus
Oct 15, 2003, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by twentyeight7
i like how no one replys to bad things.... its funny :D

Well, why bother, really? I mean, no matter how much we post to the contrary, some PC mag will always find a test or set of tests that shows that the New PowerWhatever is up to 50% slower and 50X more expensive than whatever Intel or AMD schwag that was just released, even after admitting that they couldn't run similar tests. It's become ridiculous. Actually, I have finally achieved the point where I can now just laugh, and have a better day. :)

Regards,
Gus

benixau
Oct 15, 2003, 08:24 AM
ummmm -
*didnt adboe drop premiere for mac due to crap performance copmared to FCP?
*it doesn't suprise me that a microsoft program runs faster on a microsoft OS than on its competitors OS.
*they didn't mention anything about the G5 optimisations from adobe for Pshop
*im glad they used a 64-bit OS for both platforms (NOT) I do belive that unless apple likes them a lot (unlikely) they were running jag-G5-edition rather than panther.

IMO it was an unfair test - lets pit pshop w/all optimisations and renderman against each platform - under panther. then lets see whose got the fastest machine. <- what no takers? shame :D

Likvid
Oct 15, 2003, 08:45 AM
Whatever you say the AMD 64 platform is performing better performance than the G5 2GHz.

Juventuz
Oct 15, 2003, 09:13 AM
Great rebuttal.

He made some excellent points, heck I can influence a test between a Yugo and a Ferrari and show how the Yugo is a better vehicle.

JMGrimp
Oct 15, 2003, 09:18 AM
Considering that Premier doesn't even run on OSX and Word has always worked better in Windows (duh) I'm not so sure this test can be considered particularly relevant.

mainstreetmark
Oct 15, 2003, 09:24 AM
My reply to any of these "G5 isn't the fastest" arguments is this:

If it isn't the fastest, it's darned close, and in the end it doesn't run Windows. The time I gain by not wrestling with a crappy OS makes up for the 2% speed difference.

KentuckyApple
Oct 15, 2003, 09:27 AM
This article is garbage. It is evident that the author knows absolutely nothing about Apple computers. His comparison chart at the end is a joke. How can you compare frame rates between 128 meg and 256 meg video cards. Also, MS word is a piece. Everyone knows that it is engineered to only work well with the newest and best MS OS. Sheesh!

aphexist
Oct 15, 2003, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by benixau
*didnt adboe drop premiere for mac due to crap performance copmared to FCP?


I believe it was a rapidly shrinking client base that pushed them to drop it, not bad performance. There is no PC version of FCP, so there is not a benchmark they could set with it.

eric_n_dfw
Oct 15, 2003, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by aphexist
I believe it was a rapidly shrinking client base that pushed them to drop it, not bad performance. There is no PC version of FCP, so there is not a benchmark they could set with it. How about performing the same time of actions and comparing render times in FCP with PC Premier and even vs. compositing in PC After Effects.

Lets test the use of the machine, not blindly having to pick the least common denominator between the two.

The MS Office comparison is relevant, however, as that is a big selling point Apple uses. Office on Mac is fast enough for me on a G4 500, but I don't use 1400+ page documents either.

The other comment about video card memory differences is wrong - from the bottom of their chart:Most of the PCs used dual, RAID-striped hard drives; the Apple systems did not. We retested the Alienware Aurora with the 128MB Radeon 9800 Pro card and without RAID for more-direct comparison with the G5 systems. The chart shows that Aurora system still beating the Dual G5 in Quake quite handily.

(I game on a console machine so I could care less about the gaming stats though.)

srobert
Oct 15, 2003, 10:26 AM
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12130

64-bit Apple G5s trounced by Athlon 64s, Opterons

By INQUIRER staff: Wednesday 15 October 2003, 13:54

TESTS PUTTING an Athlon 64 FX-51, and a 2GHz dual Opteron up against a 3.2GHz Pentium 4 and two PowerMac G5 systems have AMD's 64-bit offerings mashing up the Apple and pulping the Pentium.

The Athlon 64 FX system outperforms the 64-bittish G5 systems in most of the benchmarks, including Premiere 6, Word, and Quake III. Apple-friendly Photoshop, still performs best on the platform, though, the dual G5 managing a 15 per cent performance lead over the Athlon 64 FX-51.

The dual Opteron system however, beats the dual G5 in other Photoshop tests.

PC World said systems with the FX-51 showed "pronounced improvements in some of our more CPU-intensive tests, particularly AutoCAD, where they were about 44 percent faster, on average, than the P4 unit".

The FX-51 PCs also "stood out on our Premiere tests, and posted top scores on the Photoshop and VideoWave tests. The P4-based PC had the best score in our Musicmatch test".

In PC World's game tests, the FX-51 PCs were "clear winners", posting noticeably higher scores.

The tests kick off here (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,112749,pg,1,00.asp) .

mac15
Oct 15, 2003, 10:29 AM
Ah well, it was bound to happen really. Wait till the G5 get Hyperthreading and jumps up a few hundred megahertz, then things will get interesting once again :D

Mr. Anderson
Oct 15, 2003, 10:33 AM
But this isn't all that bad - imagine if we didn't have a G5 and were still stuck with the G4s.....;)

At least now we're more competitive....

D

srobert
Oct 15, 2003, 10:35 AM
It won't affect the value ofthe G5 that much... but I wonder what will happen with the "fastest personal computer in the world" campaign.

As noted in the article:

"Apple touts its new 64-bit Power Mac G5 as the world's fastest personal computer, but our initial tests indicate bragging rights may belong to PCs using AMD's Athlon 64 FX-51 chip.

Even Apple's 2-GHz dual-CPU G5 unit had a hard time keeping up with a single-chip FX-51 PC in most tests."

We could argue that the G5 is already "X" months old (annouced/shipped). How far are we from the next speed boost?

Edot
Oct 15, 2003, 10:42 AM
I like how they used Word.:rolleyes: Lets see how Appleworks performs on both systems. Also using a 50MB photoshop file hardly tests the system. Using a 1GB or greater file would show a lot more. I would like to see some tests that really stress the system, and not just processor specific tests. I have yet to see any tests that match the caliber that Apple showed at WWDC. They look like fast machines, but who wants to run Windows anyway:D

copperpipe
Oct 15, 2003, 11:09 AM
I have been a long time reader of PC World, and have much respect for your magazine. However, I am yet to see a more abject review than the "64-Bit Takes Off" what was presented in your November 2003 Edition.

Let's start with the choice of Microsoft Word. Undoubtedly a widely used piece of software, and Microsoft incredibly allowed Office v.X for the Mac to receive a number of features that the Windows version is yet to receive. There is, however, one thing that Microsoft will not allow Office for the Mac to achieve; and that is performance parity. To add to this, much of the codebase of Office v.X is left over from the good ol' days of MacOS 9 - reflected in the fact that Office is still a Carbon app. So, although Office on the Mac is extremely widely used, it's of dubious use as a means of comparing performance between processors. Unless, of course, all you do is Office and it's not presently running fast enough for you.

Next. Premiere. This is what stunned me. There is a reason that Premiere doesn't work very well on the Mac. This is because absolutely nobody who does video editing on a Mac uses it. Period. Final Cut Pro wipes to floor with it; not only in functionality, but performance also. Of all the ways you chose to benchmark the G5s, this surprised me the most.

In the Quake test, the Mac was hamstrung by the fact that it only had a 128MB video card in it. I also may be wrong in making the assertion, but doesn't the 256MB ATI 9800 Pro run at a faster clock rate than its 128MB cousin? This would account for quite a performance differential. Despite the fact that Macs aren't really known for games, no other computer with a 128MB graphics card beat it.

The next test was Photoshop. This is the one app you benchmarked in which some 64-bit optimisations have taken place for the Mac, and is also an app that many people use on the Apple platform. In this test, the G5 beat everything on offer from the x86 world by quite a handy margin.

What makes this even more impressive is that the G5 system you benchmarked is running on a stop-gap operating system release from Apple. OS X 10.3, codename Panther, has been specifically designed to take advantage of the G5's 64-bit CPU structure; it's out in barely a week.

I would certainly be interested to see a re-run of the tests, if you think that this feedback is valid. Cross-platform benchmarks are notorious for being difficult to standardise; I do, however, believe that if done properly they can be both useful and interesting.

- From a post by James on Slashdot...

Kid Red
Oct 15, 2003, 11:12 AM
Am I missing something? The PCs benched the 64s with PC WorldBench. So WTF? PC World benched some 64s with a PC benchmark app and suddenly the forgone conclusion is that it 'trounces' the G5? They ran tests on FOUR (4) applications!!! Timed tests!! On FOUR APPS!! The G5 Won some of the photoshop test, which would be one of the 4 apps used and one WAS A FRICKING GAME!?!?! Guess what, the other app was M$ WORD!!!! Yea, we all know what a great app WORD IS!! Where does this 'trounced' come from?

As far as PC World, they claim the G5 isn't a good value because it's $200 more then the Alien-ware. Ah, alien ware makes fricking boxes. oooooooo. And I'm sorry, but looking at the insides, the G5 IS HANDS DOWN WORTH THE $200 MORE!!!

This is typical PC anti-mac crap rhetoric. The PC is faster at games, we know this. The G5 will close the gap, but games are not our goal. The other app, M$ Word, I mean come on. And why use Premier when FCP is what most G5s will en up running?

Peculiar taste in chosen apps to use to compare.

mac15
Oct 15, 2003, 11:12 AM
yeahs thats reall fair, 128mb ram vs 256mb and serial ATA vs Raid. I know the top one is stupidly unfair but SATA vs Raid maybe different and I'm not sure if its fair or not. But I assumed for high end benching and writing to the disk insanely quick, RAID would win?

logicat2001
Oct 15, 2003, 11:45 AM
Please, please read the article before you spread FUD.

Their benchmarking proces was utterly ridiculous. By no means was there a "trouncing". In fact, I wouldn't even consider the G5 as "losing" anything.

Both chips are very fast. The G5 is in a desktop machine.

FUD smells bad. Don't spread it around.

Find a solution that fits your needs and price point then start using your tool and stop reading tripe like this.

sparky76
Oct 15, 2003, 12:04 PM
Could we all stop the measuring and put the ruler away? I use a 17" PB 1GHz and an Athlon XP1800+. The only app which I run on both is Folding, and the Apple sucks. The Apple is still faster for my real-world use, though. If you want to play games, get an XBox. If you want to run MS software well, get a PC. If you want to work productively and have something other than a beige box, get a Mac. If you want to keep comparing these stats, get out more.

G4scott
Oct 15, 2003, 12:06 PM
I thought PC world had more class than that, but I guess not. I thought these benchmarks smelled fishy.

Besides, what's the FX at? 2.2 ghz? or something like that...

I just love these wonderful benchmarks.

ExoticFish
Oct 15, 2003, 12:14 PM
i would like to see these two machine benchmarked while both running Gentoo Linux which is cross platform WITH optimizations for both. that would be the benchmark I would even partially believe.

FattyMembrane
Oct 15, 2003, 12:20 PM
since when is microsoft word on osx a proper benchmark? also keep in mind that the higher scoring athlon machines had graphics cards with twice as much memory. i don't doubt that the athlons are faster in many cases, amd makes good processors, but these marks are a bit skewed (the headline on slashdot says that the athlon "trounces" the g5).

does anybody remember that commercial for the toyota tundra truck a few years ago? they raced a tundra and a lotus. for the first 3 seconds it was in favor of the lotus, as it's obviously faster on flat land. but then, the course turns into steep hills and off-road conditions and magically, the tundra wins. if you have 2 inches of ground clearance, a muddy hill is not going to give you a fair representation of what your car can do. likewise, using ported and discontinued software on seperate operating systems to judge the performance of a processor is just sloppy reporting.

load gentoo (http://www.gentoo.org) on to both machines and run some benchmarks that way.

machinehien
Oct 15, 2003, 12:23 PM
This has like completely ruined my life, I am so demoralized.

Whatever...

This is the start of a whole new Propaganda War and in the PC world Apple is Goldstein, driving people to hysterics. Let the Two Minutes Hate begin.

The only thing that bothers me is how the high end PCs tested are ones that hardly anyone would ever buy but are able to cast a halo effect on all the Compaqs, Dells, and Gateways out there.

I actually know people who own G5's and many more planning on buying one. I have yet to meet a single person who owns an alienware system.

pgwalsh
Oct 15, 2003, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by mac15
yeahs thats reall fair, 128mb ram vs 256mb and serial ATA vs Raid. I know the top one is stupidly unfair but SATA vs Raid maybe different and I'm not sure if its fair or not. But I assumed for high end benching and writing to the disk insanely quick, RAID would win? I think they are doing the comparisons on the best setup for each system that you can buy.... Apples systems are very expensive and if you can get more perfomance from an AMD system by spending a little more than you should do it. However, they still have all the virus issues and no FCP, iTunes (eeer wait), idvd, iphoto etc etc.

srobert
Oct 15, 2003, 12:39 PM
Not to nag, 'cause after all, we're the good guys... BUT, we sound EXACTLY like the PC crowd sounded when Apple first posted benchmarks for the G5s. We're discrediting their numbers just as they tryed to discredits ours. ^_^ I'm not saying that we're wrong in doing so. Just that... we're more alike than I tought.

Now, let the debate continue!

(Edited: Typos)

Ensoniq
Oct 15, 2003, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by srobert
Not to nag, 'cause after all, we're the good guys... BUT, we sound EXACTLY like the PC crowd sounded when Apple first posted benchmarks for the G5s. We're discrediting their numbers just as they tryed to discredits ours. ^_^ I'm not saying that we're wrong in doing so. Just that... we're more alike than I tought.

Now, let the debate continue!

(Edited: Typos)

To a degree, I agree with you. We should continue this debate with more decorum instead of insults, because that would be beneath us fine Macintosh users. :)

But...overall, I think we're NOT doing exactly what the PCers did. Most of the rebuttals I've seen make sure to recognize that we're debating the actual test procedure as being biased. We're not saying the numbers those tests produced are wrong. I fully believe that the tests PC World did, explained the way they did, produced those results as printed. I don't believe they "lied" as everyone claimed Apple did.

At first, many people also said the G5 tests were biased, because of GCC as the compiler and HyperThreading turned off and all that stuff. But then Apple clearly explained why they did what they did, and then most people ended up having to shut up because there was no evidence Apple "rigged" anything to hurt the PCs. Even though people can still complain they didn't like HOW Apple did the tests, no independent PC review group has re-run Apple's tests and proved Apple was wrong or "lied" in some way.

I guess the same thing is going on here...we can't say PC World lied, only that we question whether or not their test is a fair comparison. I personally believe Apple's test methodology was far more fair, but it's best not to re-debate that issue all over again with the Wintel crowd. Instead, I'd LOVE to see PC World run Apple's test suite and prove Apple lied, or admit to the whole PC community that Apple's results were 100% accurate.

But that won't happen...apparently Word and Premiere tests are as "fair" as PC World can manage. :)

-- Ensoniq

LethalWolfe
Oct 15, 2003, 01:40 PM
OMG, do some of you people post w/o reading the thread or clicking on the original like?

Go to the article and look at the last page. PCWorld tested the PCs stock, and they unRAIDed the HDDs and replaced the 256meg vid card w/the 128meg version and ran the benchmarks again.


Lethal

copperpipe
Oct 15, 2003, 02:13 PM
In this case, I don't think we're like the "PC crowd" at all. I think this is an over the top and blatant spin-type of article that plagues the world today. Fair journalism is dead, we now live in a world where misinformation is king, and this article is proof. Marketing predators have learned that most people just read headlines, or even if they read the article, the headline sticks. Lazy humans are preyed upon in this society by advertisers and agenda driven "jounalists" like a cheetah preys upon the weakest gazelle. That is why we are crying FOUL! And we should, it is important. If someone writes an at least somewhat fair article with decent Benchmarks and a headline that is appropriate things would be different. We would all be saying this: "It's the OS that really matters and at that level of speed it isn't as big a deal" But this isn't the case. The fact is that the article is FUD. Noone should feel bad about exposing it...

Independence
Oct 15, 2003, 02:41 PM
i'll just point out that all your definitions of a "fair" article is one where the Apple wins. you don't care about anything else. so take a look in the mirror. you're almost as bad as religious fanatics.

try to keep an open mind. a closed mind is a very dangerous thing.

Originally posted by sparky76
If you want to work productively and have something other than a beige box, get a Mac.
i didn't realize any computers these days had beige boxes.

you fit my signature like a glove.

copperpipe
Oct 15, 2003, 02:46 PM
"If you think one platform is hands down better than the other you are either a fanboy or misinformed." -LethalWolfe


...or perhaps you just have an opinion as to which OS works best for you.

- Copperpipe

Independence
Oct 15, 2003, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by copperpipe
"If you think one platform is hands down better than the other you are either a fanboy or misinformed." -LethalWolfe


...or perhaps you just have an opinion as to which OS works best for you.

- Copperpipe
actually, no. if i did have an OS that works best for me, i wouldn't be dual booting linux/windows xp.

slowtreme
Oct 15, 2003, 03:16 PM
As sad as the results are, accept them.

We can't blame PCworld for these results, if the G5 was disadvantaged in the test group it's clearly a "Mac users" fault. After all... well I'll let you read the Quote:

Even Apple's 2-GHz dual-CPU G5 unit had a hard time keeping up with a single-chip FX-51 PC in most tests. (Tests were not exhaustive, however: Working with our sibling publication, Macworld, we selected four applications available on both platforms and then ran seven hand-timed tests. Our test suite, PC WorldBench 4, cannot run on Macs.)

If the guys at Macworld could not provide good test data, or at least valid arguements to the PCworld writers about which applications to use as comparisons, then the truth is probably that the results speak for themselves.

None of this is going to mean much to anyone. Mac users will continue to Mac, and Wintel users will still wonder why anyone uses a Mac, until they try it themselves. We can all agree there is a lot more to Macs and OSX than the measurable speed of 4 applications.

iPC
Oct 15, 2003, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by benixau
ummmm -
*didnt adboe drop premiere for mac due to crap performance copmared to FCP?
*it doesn't suprise me that a microsoft program runs faster on a microsoft OS than on its competitors OS.
*they didn't mention anything about the G5 optimisations from adobe for Pshop
*im glad they used a 64-bit OS for both platforms (NOT) I do belive that unless apple likes them a lot (unlikely) they were running jag-G5-edition rather than panther.

IMO it was an unfair test - lets pit pshop w/all optimisations and renderman against each platform - under panther. then lets see whose got the fastest machine. <- what no takers? shame :D
A few things... the AMD 64 systems were single proc, the 2GHz G5 is a dual. QT is a Apple program, and it is 2x faster on the AMD? Granted, previous poster mentioned the details ignore as to what QT was actually encoding.

The G5 is nice. The AMD 64 is nice. It should be obvious to whomever buys what system, as to what meets their needs.

The G4 12" PB with the new 1GHz proc is a "better" machine than what is in my sig, but I knew what my needs were.

I am going to go back to doing something usefull, like smashing my head into the wall.

--

KidRed - ask for a poll of how many people use MS Word at work. It is one of the most valid apps you could benchmark. Much more so than Photoshop (on the PC side of the world).

yamabushi
Oct 15, 2003, 03:45 PM
I find it interesting that the pentium 4 system faired poorly despite having a 256MB graphics card, RAID, and code primarily optimized for it. If it takes these new radical chip designs from AMD to even give the G5 a run for its money, then Apple is doing just fine. Sure, the tests were skewed such that the G5 didn't really have a chance. Despite this it still fared pretty well, despite the inflammatory headlines.

The bottom line is that the G5 is fast, AMD is very fast for a PC, and Intel is well...very um...expensive?:)

Xnet
Oct 15, 2003, 04:49 PM
1. There is no 2GHz Opteron single or dual PollyStation listed on the website (http://www.polywell.com/us/workstations/polystation2020a.asp).

So is PC Mag testing pre-release machines against a machine thats been out for over a month?

2. A dual 1.8 Opteron with 256 MB vid card is $3763. With no modem monitor and only CD-RW drive and 512 RAM

how is Apple a bad deal!?

copperpipe
Oct 15, 2003, 06:14 PM
Here's the material we're debating:

"If you think one platform is hands down better than the other you are either a fanboy or misinformed." -LethalWolfe


...or perhaps you just have an opinion as to which OS works best for you.

- Copperpipe

actually, no. if i did have an OS that works best for me, i wouldn't be dual booting linux/windows xp

______
Now, LethalWolfes quotation is addressing me (notice the use of the word "you"). In fact, it is addressing everyone with the statement you've quoted. My reply to that is this: "I can have an opinion as to what OS works best for me, and in fact anyone can have such an opinion, and I nor anyone else is necessarily a fanboy or misinformed."

So when you tell me about your setup it doesn't matter. Dual booting works best for you, that's great! It's a big world out there, and we all have separate needs.

here's some more opinion for ya:

Lethalwolfes illogical quote I think is designed to make other people feel small, and to make the person who states the quote to feel "powerful".

LethalWolfe
Oct 15, 2003, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by copperpipe
Here's the material we're debating:

"If you think one platform is hands down better than the other you are either a fanboy or misinformed." -LethalWolfe


...or perhaps you just have an opinion as to which OS works best for you.

- Copperpipe

actually, no. if i did have an OS that works best for me, i wouldn't be dual booting linux/windows xp

______
Now, LethalWolfes quotation is addressing me (notice the use of the word "you"). In fact, it is addressing everyone with the statement you've quoted. My reply to that is this: "I can have an opinion as to what OS works best for me, and in fact anyone can have such an opinion, and I nor anyone else is necessarily a fanboy or misinformed."

So when you tell me about your setup it doesn't matter. Dual booting works best for you, that's great! It's a big world out there, and we all have separate needs.

here's some more opinion for ya:

Lethalwolfes illogical quote I think is designed to make other people feel small, and to make the person who states the quote to feel "powerful".


What is illogical about saying that Macs and PCs both have pro's and con's and neither platform is completely superior to the other? Thinking that one platform *is* completely superior to the other in every way, shape, and form is, IMO, illogical. That is the point of my quote. It's not meant to make anyone feel small, or make myself feel powerful.

I'm not saying people are misinformed or fanboys if they have a perference or they think one platofrom is superior in some ways, I'm just saying that they are minsinformed or fanboys if, as I said, they believe one platform is completely superior than the other in every way.


Lethal

Jonathan Amend
Oct 15, 2003, 11:16 PM
I agree... it takes a lot of stupidity to be biased towards a machine.

sabbath999
Oct 16, 2003, 12:46 AM
is something that I do every day, use Avid Xpress DV 3.5.

IIRC it was written for OSX. Both Winblows & OSX seem to run it well, although it is much more snappy on my AMD Athlon XP machine than on my G4 Powermac (single processor). All I really care about is rendering, how long does it take each machine to render really big effects? That make real-world difference to me.

Either way, whichever 64 bitter is faster, they both smoke Intel... and isn't that a good thing?

And IBM is making us faster, so life is good. Panther will make my computer faster.

OSX is my OS of choice. I don't have to have the world's fastest computer, but I do have to have the world's best OS.

copperpipe
Oct 16, 2003, 05:19 PM
I use both windows Xp at work and Mac OS X at home. In my opinion, OS X wins "Hands down" over XP. Of course not in EVERY WAY, that is rediculous as you say. For me it is a question of priorities and "feel" for lack of a better word. I just gravitate towards OS X because I seem to just enjoy it more, and thus I am more productive with it. I know that these are intangible things, but they are the reasons that for me, OS X is "hands down" a better OS (plus the fact that it has never crashed on me in two years now, installing new items is so much more a snap, and other very specific reasons). If someone thinks XP wins "Hands down" for them then that's fine with me. I guess it was all a question of symantics...

Oblivion
Dec 21, 2003, 11:13 AM
http://spl.haxial.net/apple-powermac-G5/

Would any Mac lover like to dissagree with this site?

Aivd Xpress Pro is the only comparison. If anyone has both machines then we can decide the true victor.

benixau
Dec 21, 2003, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Oblivion
http://spl.haxial.net/apple-powermac-G5/

Would any Mac lover like to dissagree with this site?

Aivd Xpress Pro is the only comparison. If anyone has both machines then we can decide the true victor.

very good point. They should use avid to test as it is heavily optimised for both platforms (alti-vec and SSE2). Hey, they can afford it with the $200 they saved on buying the single processor pc instead of the dual processor mac.

i_wolf
Dec 21, 2003, 08:13 PM
first of all, there are no autovectoring compilers yet for the mac. IBM and Apple said at the WWDC in july when i spoke to engineers that they are working on this at the moment. Both GCC 3.3 and ICC optimize like hell for SSE and SSE2 for opteron and pentium 4 so those platforms automatically get nice optimized apps. Presently the only way an app will have Altivec optimizations let alone G5 optimizations is if the programmer writes the commands him/herself. its C like in syntax. so not as difficult to write as SSE or SSE2. It also has the potential to cause much much greater boost in speed in a wider variety of apps than SSE2 or SSE presently. Expect apple to rectify this situation shortly with an auto vectoring compiler (a compiler that will automatically try to to optimize for a vector unit).

As for the macworld / pcworld 'review'. Absolutely rubbish. Anyway most of whats being discussed here has already been discussed here.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49201

I know i put a big rant in there. But bear with me on what i wrote there. I have the oportunity to work with all three platforms. I explained at that link the flaws in the reviewing and 'benchmarking' process used by PC/Macworld. I also linked to a good few third party independent and reliable sources for bench's that you me and whoever could easiliy recreate here today.
Incidentally there was a review done by barefeats the other day. Interestingly the G5 won every benchmark except the photoshop!. Interesting that.... funnily enough if they had taken the G5 optimized results of photoshop 7 instead of CS they would have seen the G5 win by a small margin. Makes me wonder what the heck Adobe were doing when the optimized going from version 7 to cs which actually runs slightly slower on G5!
rgs
i_wolf

ltgator333
Dec 21, 2003, 10:10 PM
AMD has been working on this chip for years, carefully planning the architecture and mapping out how it was going to work and perform- it doesn't suprise me that it does apparently outperform the G5 in some instances, allthough, the thing us Mac folks have to realize is the G5 is a brand new thing, and I think that Apple maybe even rushed this out the door a little- what that means is we're looking at a Mac machine that was put together quickly and is bound to be updated. The G5 in benchmarks I've seen in various places they've been done has performed unbeleiveably slow in some cases, which I think hints to the fact there's some defecencies with perhaps the motherboard or it's chipset, or perhaps how the operating system enteracts with them. Even if there are no problems whatsoever, the machines we're using I beleive are a "rev A", and that always gives way to "rev B" which is bigger, better, and faster than the previous. So today we may be at a loss, tomarrow we may get a new chipset and really shine. And even if that isn't so, I've got a dualie Athlon sitting behind me right now, and instead I'm using my extremely modded out PMac 7600.. (you CAN put Jag on them..) why? the thing just works, without this OS that makes it usable and freindly and trustworthy, it's just a lifeless hunk of pretty hardware like my dual AMD......

Mav451
Dec 22, 2003, 01:00 AM
I personally don't even consider PC world a good magazine for this kind of information--for these reasons:

1) Remember when AMD was getting spanked by the 3.2Ghz P4 b/c the best AMD proc wuz the 3200+, which is no where NEAR the 3.2Ghz in most games/benches/applications? PC world SOMEHOW found that the 3200+ was "outperforming" the 3.2P4--but I and most people know better than that.

To come even CLOSE to matching the P4 using the traditional Athlon XP's, required HEAVY FSB overclocking--and thank god there is the Abit NF7-S (which have had people avg easily 215-230's). And only THEN can they even come close to matching the 3.2P4--of course, then, Intel fans point out, and rightfully so, the 2.4 which can reach 3.0Ghz using "1000fsb" or 250fsb quad pumped--and their advantage in memory/games is even greater...anyway

The 3.2P4 was obviously better than the 3200+, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out--but somehow PC world's "benchmark" (their own program) somehow found the 3200+ outperforming the 3.2P4.

2) This comparison is clearly not fair b/c they are running mostly SINGLE CPU applications and comparing it to an SMP setup (dual G5's). Comparable PC eqivalents are the Xeon and Opteron setups (i guess the 2.8 533fsb Xeon and the 246 Opteron (more affordable @ 700bucks a pair).

*SMPs are good for one thing--multiple threads!!! And that was obviously not the focal point of PC world's testing process.

HOWEVER, while the G5 is a "mainstream" SMP setup, there are NO opteron and xeon EQUIVALENTS out there that can be picked up @ Best Buy--again, apples and oranges (pardon the pun ;) )

What they SHOULD be comparing is either the single 1.8G5 to., say, the 3200+ Athlon64 (which is about $300 a pop now, a HECK of alot closer to the price range of the 1.8G5 than the FX-51), or the 3.0P4 (again, closer in price range, $270ish). Obviously a single 2.0G5 vs. the FX and P4 would be better, but alas, that is not an available option from Apple for a "clear cut" comparison.

So what the heck am i saying? I'm saying they didn't compare the right chips, and certainly didn't use the right benchmarks.

And again, benchmarks are in the eye of the beholder (PShop for graphics guys, 3dmark - as controversial as it is--for gamers, PCmark (but no Mac equivalent of this) for overall performance or Content Creation test for that matter--but AGAIN, no Mac eqiuvalent.

With no "universal", widely accepted benchmarks, bickering is inevitable, and confusion abound :) lol, j/k on the confusion.

scem0
Dec 22, 2003, 02:09 AM
Even if these benchmarks aren't completely fair the athalon 64 is still faster than the G5.

Until people realize that speed isnt that important, and that overall effeciency plays a much bigger part in the computing experience, they wont truly be able to enjoy their Macintosh.

scem0

ZildjianKX
Dec 22, 2003, 02:12 AM
Originally posted by mac15
Ah well, it was bound to happen really. Wait till the G5 get Hyperthreading and jumps up a few hundred megahertz, then things will get interesting once again :D

I really doubt you'll ever see hyperthreading in PPC processors... since Apple likes to make $$$ off of dual processor systems, and it would boost the performance of a SP system too much.

And for all those people complaining about 128 MB vs 256 MB of graphics memory, its very negligable as benchmark scores go.

Sabenth
Dec 22, 2003, 04:56 AM
blah blah blah amd intel blah blah blah g5 blah blah..

DO WE NOT LIKE MACS OR DO WE LIKE PCS i know what i like iam not a power user but i know id love a g5 over a pc any day no matter what speed..

ITR 81
Dec 22, 2003, 06:41 AM
If you want to see the best and most even handed test check out MacAddict Jan. 04' edition.
It bit a 2.0Ghz G5 with 1Gb of ram against the big Big 5 with 3.2 P4's and 1Gb of ram.

They ran all the same tests on both Mac and PC. They ran both Mac and PC benchmark software on both. The Mac benchmark company even commented that the one used in the test was optimized for the G4 not the G5 processor. This also what happen in the gaming side as well. MacAddict also did real world testing. Something their sister publication didn't do when they did their testing. They tested how long it takes to do all kinds of filters renders on a picture in Photoshop when MacAddict did how long it takes to import or export and render a 25-50meg file(something most everyone does with photoshop).

In the Mathematica 5.0 benchmark:

The P4 won but Mathematica said the software was not optimized for the G5 yet but the P4 was optimized.

In the Photoshop 7.0.1 app. benchmark:
The P4 one by 2 mins.

In the Photoshop 7.0.1 50mb benchmark:
The G5 wins by 8 seconds

In the Photoshop 7.0.1 25mb benchmark:
The G5 wins by 5 seconds

In the Indesign 2.0 export complex PDF benchmark:
The G5 loses by 4 seconds. Indesign is not currently optimized for the G5.

Quicktime 6.3 encode DV to MOV benchmark:
G5 wins by 4 mins

Bibble/MacBibble 3.1a Covert Raw to TIFF Benchmark:
G5 wins by 2 and half min.

Compressor vs. ProCoder 1.5 highspeed benchmark:
G5 loses by less then a min.

Compressor vs. ProCoder 1.5 highquality benchmark:
G5 wins by 8 mins

Unreal Tournment 03' benchmark:
Unreal won't be optimized for the G5 until the 04' edition is released.
P4 kills the G5 by 210 fps

Quake III: Arena benchmark:
Optimized for G5.
P4 and G5 both in a dead heat at 400 fps each.

Jedi Knight II benchmark:
Not optimized yet, but a update is said to be coming soon.
P4 beats the G5 by 50 fps.

MacAddict said most all the current games out not still do not take advantage of the G5. Once they have been optimized you see their performance match the P4 performance if not exceed it.

I wonder what PC mag will say when more apps come out optimized for the G5 next yr and we have atleast a 2.4 G5 by next Jan.??

Also the AMD 51-FX cost a bundle. I priced one recently with a MB and it was going to cost me basically a grand for the set and this was before I even bought ram for it.

Also when someone spends 3k on a computer $200 bucks IMO isn't going to make big difference in what I buy. Now maybe $500 or 600 bucks...well thats another story.

Oblivion
Dec 22, 2003, 07:30 AM
I wouldnt trust anything on an AMD or Mac site in terms of comparison. I thought the benchmarks on Barefeats was the most honest of them all.

http://barefeats.com/#quick

I'm more impressed with the FX-51 then the Opteron but, thats the only dual setup thats available with AMD64. When a mobo comes out that is able to use 2 chips for the AMD FX-51 then we will be on more even grounds then we are now. Since after all the FX-51 is the current flagship of AMD and not the Opteron just as the 2.0 Dual G5 is the flagship of Mac.

i_wolf
Dec 22, 2003, 03:00 PM
Unfortunately some of the bench's mentioned were games, and unfortunately this is a situation where its difficult to compare like with like.
Reason i would question a lot of results, most games so far have been sloppy ports of windows games. Only recently have i seen decent mac game ports. A lot of mac games have a long way to go with regard s to optimization for the platform, for example with including altivec optimizations. These same games which can leverage SSE and SSE2 on x86 could do great and much better on PPC by leveraging altivec better on PPC ( i am not mentioning G5 optimizations deliberately because not everyone with a mac has a G5 while i would imagine the vast majority of mac users buying a game would have altivec enabled processor). But a much wider problem is how we compare a game across two platforms like x86 and PPC. On the x86 most games presently are Direct X, which obviously Mac doesn't support natively in OS X. Then there is the question of driver quality. OpenGL driver quality is jumping in leaps and bounds on Mac platform. Only recently i have seen big FPS jumps with the 10.3.2 update. This was provided by better drivers and not the hardware. Unfortunately its difficult to make comparisons except to establish what we already know; the pc is a better gaming platform. I would imagine that the Mac drivers for Open GL are much better optimized for 3d apps like lightwave and Maya etc... than for games. I would not be surprised if they share a lot of their codebase with the FireGL on wintel side. The firegl exhibits similar performance to what the Mac sees in games and in 3d apps, i.e. its games fps do not exhibit the cards power, but pro 3d apps do.
As for the other apps. The thing to remember is that we are seeing very very very raw G5 results. pretty much worst case scenario in most apps being benched today.
neither the P4 nor the Opteron can claim this. Both can take extensive advantage of SSE2 and SSE in existing apps. As i already mentioned Apple and IBM have promised to work on adding autovectorisation to their compilers. This would make a huge difference to performance.
As for the rest of the architecture. The Power4 unlike the opteron does not in any way base itself off a prior generation. The Opteron is essentially a tweaked Athlon XP with ondie memory controller, SSE2 and x86-64. The FPU and Integer units are identical to that of athlon xp. So For 32 bit code which is all we can compare either opteron or G5 on today, the opteron is pretty much as optimized as it can get presently. Current 32 bit code tends to have a lot of Athlon optimizations and SSE2 P4 optimizations which the Opteron takes advantage of automatically. Its performance is supposed to be about 10% faster in 64 bit mode in linux tests.
Furthermore GCC3.3 provides a lot of P4 and Athlon 64 optimizations....such as autovectorisation for SSE , SSE2, 3dNow! etc... It still does NOT provide autovectorisation for altivec.
As for the G5, its extremely radical a design and extremely forward looking. Ars over at arstechnica noted in his summary of the 970 and Power 4+ processor that the chips would probably be ahead of compilers that would be needed to get these puppies to flex their mussles. He was prob right.
The G5 has dual integer and Fpu units (both complex). Currently GCC3.3 is not able to get both int and both fpu units running in parallel as was the design idea behind the chip. When both units are run synchronously in parallel the chip is operating as design intended and its theoretical performance per GHz is vastly superior to Opteron or Xeon at same GHz. Theoretically GCC3.3 is only able to allow the G5 run at 50% efficiency since it cannot generate code that runs the dual int and dual fpu units in parallel. Another future looking design of the G5 was the instruction scheduler. The G5 can have far more instructions in flight than the Xeon and Opteron and it can retire more instructions if need arises. This is a result of an incredibly advanced scheduler. Again this scheduler is supposed to keep the pipelines (wide and deep) filled. Currently GCC does not generate 'optimized' code that can do this. I put optimized in commas because while GCC can make certain optimizations it certainly does not generate code that flexes the processor properly. This is exactly in line with what Ars mentioned over at arstechnica. He was proven even more insightful when IBM released their XLC and XLF compilers for G5 as well as their 970 blade machines. These beta compilers in many cases saw integer code perform nearly twice as well as GCC3.3 code and floating point code perform 270% better than GCC3.3 code. Vector (altivec) code tends to run 70% better than GCC3.3 code.
This was discussed extensively in the ars forums and over at slashdot where the results were proven consistent among many testers on many applications. This is a beta compiler and performance should definately IMPROVE. Also this compiler still does autovectorise for altivec. IBM will be adding this feature especially since they are now using altivec in their blade servers.
So put it this way, in a worst case scenario the G5 is about as fast if not slightly faster in raw unoptimized form in majority of real world bench's.... whats the performance gonna be like when optimal compilers are used like XLF and XLC! just do a search on google of IBM XLC and XLF and you will see what i mean! ;) These puppies annihalate the competition.

manitoubalck
Dec 22, 2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Sabenth
id love a g5 over a pc any day no matter what speed..

Then your ignorance will be your undoing

yamabushi
Dec 22, 2003, 05:31 PM
So when are we going to see a new version of gcc and a final version of xlc that take advantage of all that the G5 offers? I hope we won't have to wait too long since every day we wait several applications are released using less than ideal compilers. Most games and mainstream professional apps compiled with gcc3.3 or earlier won't get the benefit of a recompile after they are released.

ITR 81
Dec 22, 2003, 08:13 PM
IBM's compiler is now in beta right now so I would say within next 3 months.

With the compiler software performance could see as much as a 50% speed boost.

ITR 81
Dec 22, 2003, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by manitoubalck
Then your ignorance will be your undoing

I think you are ignorant one because his statement only proves he's loyal to Apple no matter what speed of processor it produces.

Speed doesn't matter to all Mac users.

I myself like speed, but the only thing I even use a PC for now is to play games on. The rest is done on a Mac.

So far my PC hasn't seen any action for the past 6 months so I may either just give it away or junk it.

i_wolf
Dec 22, 2003, 08:36 PM
yes and no. First and foremost, even in its most raw 'optimized ' state the G5 is probably as fast or faster than opteron and co on x86 side. In terms of compiler support it is coming. Remember this time round with the G5, IBM are using the same processor with the same bells and whistles liike altivec etc.. in their blade servers, so they will be keen to leverage the power as well as is evidence with their release of XLC and XLF beta. What is also very interesting is that they are vigorously supporting the G5 on apples part, by specifically including flags in the compiler for optimizations for ppc970, blade , Apple G5 (all the same so far!) and support for older PPC with altivec! Also IBM have said in their developer network and Apple have also said that both companies are actively working with GCC to get its optimization levels much much higher with GCC.
IBM and APPLE will add autovectorisation much sooner than later IMO to GCC , XLC and XLF. Its in their interest as well to do this since they are now selling products with a 'G5' in it ... namely their blade servers.
As for leveraging the advanced cpu schedulers for extreme paralellism, that will happen over time. But again i would reckon much sooner than later, partly because i had no idea that they had such an advanced 'compatible' compiler like XLC and XLF available so soon after the G5 launch.
Another thing to note is that, why can't your apps start getting better optimized now!! XLC and XLF are avail for download now free from IBM website, since OS X is essentially another flavour of unix why not try recompiling some of your own fav apps your self.
As for manufacturers adding G5 optimizations, again i reckon everything is pointing to a healthy sooner than later. Apple are now providing XCode with their OS for FREE. XCode itself is evolving and is an evolving development platform, which means that developers have free access to it. It also means that unlike a developer using Visual Studio.NET, he or she does not have to pay huge fees for the latest and greates version which includes all the latest compiler tunings for the latest processor families. It also means that developers have instant access to the latest optimizing techniques that apple is providing for the G5 in XCode.
Not that i want to run down GCC, it does add some G5 optimizations. The level of optimization and speed gain you get depends on whether you simply do a recompile with GCC3.3 or spend a little time doing specific processor tuning with the provided tools and by writing specific code.
Obviously though the highest level of GCC optimizations will not at all be on the same level as XLC or XLF. But i mention this hear so you know that there is probably much more performance to be squeezed out of current GCC3.3 'G5 Optimized' code!
On the other hand currently optimized code built with GCC3.3 tends to be faster than the opteron running x86 optimized code. Check the barefeats results for that.

With regard to games, I think that there could be huge performance gains if developers bother to tune for G5, but how many apple users have a G5 just to play games?! Will developers tune for this small minority?? I think apple's biggest problem in terms of games boils down to a few things, none of which really have anything to do with the processor or system architecture per say.
1). Most Mac games are sloppy ports of PC games.
2) Most PC games use the Direct X API, which is not supported under OSX. its a closed API.
3) I believe that Apple have tuned their video drivers (particularly in 10.3.2) for 3d pro apps more than 3d games. I seam to get much much higher performance with this update in 3d apps like MAYA than i do in games! In the windows world a 9800 pro is great for games and not so great for MAYA, while the same card branded FIRE GL by ATI; but which uses 3d power applications specific drivers is crap at games but great at the power apps like MAYA and Lightwave etc...

That said it will be interesting to see what a company like ID does with its DOOM 3 on the Mac since they have traditionally been one of the few staunch supporters of the latest MAC technology and a powerhouse like the G5 would thrive on an app like that. Also its written in Open GL and ID (in myopinion) do not traditionally make sloppy mac ports. They put the effort that they deserve into their games.

Regardless though the pc will stay the games leader in performance and variety. This particular battle will never really be won unless Apple takes a more aggressive stance to getting games developed on and for the mac but working with development houses better.

Anyway, enough ranting! Night all, and in case i don't hear or see from any of you over the next few days. Happy Christmas, i hope its a great one for you all and Santa brings lots of powerbooks, powermacs.
Rgs
i_wolf

P.S. guys sorry for the length. Just its not a simple two line answer. I got flamed once for replying with a big rant like that, but remember it take more effort and a lot more time to write back a bit thing like that that just two lines! :) so go easy!

Oblivion
Dec 23, 2003, 03:18 AM
Currently for the performance diffrence the dual 2.0 G5 is nothing spectacular. It most certainly isnt worth the price tag beig 3k at Apple.com with stock components and without a monitor. If your getting this G5 for personal home use and not professional then why? Is it stability? You can get a cheaper Mac for personal home usage if thats your fancy. When the G5 optimizations appear then things may change in the performance level but, as it currently stands theres nothing that would draw me in its direction when we're talking minor perrformance diffrences between it and the Amd64.

Lets talk about professional work.

I can do the same Profesional video editing with the PC at the same efficiency level and performance as the G5. Except I am benefiting in 1 thing greatly........ low cost. I also have the option to play MANY pc games although thats not my intent but, its still an added option which exceeds Mac.

Where is the Profesional 3d grafic animation field in Mac? Since Mac has its very limited compatabilitywith video cards then that leaves us with nothing in this field. Wildcat, Quadro, Fire, Oxygen are cards to name a few that wont work for Mac and they are leading in this field.

The only thing your doing when getting a Mac is paying ALOT of money for stability. Since Mac and PC can equally do apps as efficent as each other do you really want to pay that extra 1k just for stability? To tell you the truth Both OS X and XP are not flawless but, with a pc you have the ability to use Linux which is another option for stability to run the programs that are compatable for it. Linux crashes just like every other OS and is more stable then XP. Why not use Linux and stop comparing OS X with XP?

Finnal Word:
There just isnt anything on the Mac that I simply can not do on the PC that can efficently get the job done fast AND retains its quality.

manitoubalck
Dec 23, 2003, 04:29 AM
Oblivion, good words and I tend to agree.

My next upgrde will come when the new BTX standard comes in arround april, with PCI Express graphics cards:D

Sabenth
Dec 23, 2003, 05:44 AM
my blah blah comment stems from the fact that i for one do not need or feel the need to have supper power systems for reading e mail surfing the web and playing the odd game. i understand that a fair few people around here use computers for more important things. I am not loyal to apple i happen to just be a fan of theres.

i_wolf
Dec 23, 2003, 09:28 AM
The performance of the G5 is only unspectacular if you look at silly macworld 'reviews' where blatant holes in the benchmarking process are obvious and where an honest benchmark does not take place.
With regard to your quest for vid editing. AFAIK the G5 and FCP are the only combination that can process 9 streams WITH effects on each stream and run them simultaneously without dropping frames!!!!
If you are in the film industry thats amazing. You cannot get that performance on any single app and chip combo in x86 land presently without dropping frames.
As for 3d work, well MAYA, Lightwave are a few products that are due for newer editions with G5 optimizations.
You are right though you cannot buy wildcat, Quadro etc... for the G5. However, Apple are using the 9800 pro which in all honesty and technicality is identical card to their FireGL pro graphics card. The only thing that differentiates the 9800 pro and FireGL on the windows side is price and 3d app tunes drivers. Thats it. More than likely IMO apple are using the 9800 name purely to attract people who would be aware of the 9800 and not the FireGL. Regardless they have a card in the machine which has just as much potential and for all intents and purposes is a FireGL. Apple have recently released newer drivers for their ATI graphics cards which provide huge increases in performance in different 3d apps. Personally, i would much much prefer to have an ATI card in my machine such as the FireGL than a Wildcat or Quadro. AFAIK, the FireGL is the only card that supports full OPENGL 2.0 compatibility , and its in apple's machine. I certainly would not knock them on that account.
I really believe that performance of the G5 is spectacular. Look at some of the very early optimized apps like FCP with its 9 streams with full effects. Thats incredible. Look then at completely unoptimized apps and see how well the G5 runs legacy apps; thats extremely impressive. It runs 30% more efficent per clock than the G4 according to IBM and Apple. Thats impressive. Its photoshop results are extremely impressive. Its weird though, if you took the results that barefeats had for Photoshop 7 with G5 plugin and compared against the opteron, the G5 would have won. However photoshop CS seams to be slightly slower than 7 on G5!But still its extremely fast. there are a lot of other apps out there that scream on G5 even in their raw upoptimized state.
As far as professional 3d graphic applications .... there is MAYA, LUXOLOGY, LIGHTWAVE, RENDERMAN to name a few.
The only thing your doing when getting a Mac is paying ALOT of money for stability. Since Mac and PC can equally do apps as efficent as each other do you really want to pay that extra 1k just for stability? To tell you the truth Both OS X and XP are not flawless but, with a pc you have the ability to use Linux which is another option for stability to run the programs that are compatable for it. Linux crashes just like every other OS and is more stable then XP. Why not use Linux and stop comparing OS X with XP?

Again i completely disagree. OS X and XP DO NOT run apps as efficient as each other. You can have many many more apps open at once on OS X running happily together because of its UNIX heritage with protected memory and multithreading, which XP cannot match. If you are a developer like myself who often has 20 apps running together at once you appreciate this. Yes I would pay more money for stability, because if one app crashes i don't want it to take all my other apps im working on with it. This happens every so often on XP. Especially when XP has a lot of intensive apps open together at once.
As far as running linux, yes that is an option on a G5 as well. But there are a number of problems with this. The same 3d pro apps that you are looking for such as for vid editing , photoshop, Lightwave etc... do not run on LInux. Sure there are quality open source alternatives but in some cases such as some of the professional 3d apps there really isn't any alternative. Incidentally the reason Linux sometimes crashes normally for me anyway, is X11, which IMO is a bloated collection of hacks and long in the tooth. It still doesn't support true alpha blending, transparency etc..
Quartz is rock solid on OS X. And is fully hardware accelerated. You also have the benefit that apple have an X11 layer that sits on top of it (instead of a full x11) that is hardware accelerated by quartz and allows you to run all your X based linux/unix apps in addition to your Microsoft Office, MAYA, Photoshop, Final Cut Pro. This is the ONLY platform that allows you to do this. And do it easily.

Final word: Actually use a G5 mac and see for yourself what im talking about!

Oblivion
Dec 27, 2003, 01:16 AM
"AFAIK the G5 and FCP are the only combination that can process 9 streams WITH effects on each stream and run them simultaneously without dropping frames!!!!"

Apple/FCP claims they don't drop frames. Surf around a few FCP boards and you'll see that dropped frames is one of the biggest problems with the app. Besides both Mac and PC loose to SGI Inferno.

9 streams with effects and no dropped frames? Nope

Try Flame or Inferno as a Real Compositor.

"As for 3d work, well MAYA, Lightwave are a few products that are due for newer editions with G5 optimizations."

Lightwave is old news. What portion of the film market does it command? Try running Renderman using Lightwave.... NO. It is nothing compared to Maya Unlimited, Houdini OR Softimage XSI. Lightwave is ancient, Why is Maya used as the Princible modeller for Pixar's movies and animation along with Inhouse tools?

Where is Maya Unlimited for OS X... it hasn't been released and no signs of life. Infact where is Hudini or XSI for Os X? They are both higher end then Maya.

"Personally, i would much much prefer to have an ATI card in my machine such as the FireGL than a Wildcat or Quadro. AFAIK, the FireGL is the only card that supports full OPENGL 2.0 compatibility"

FireGL is NOT fully Maya certified. Quitebuggy. Try oppening a million polly scene on the FireGL. Maya is a joke on FireGL and shouldn't be compared to Wildcat cards which are FULL OpenGL 2. Your comparing apples to oranges. Do a google on the performance diffrences.

"As far as running linux, yes that is an option on a G5 as well.

Do i sense a performance loss? Your also going to convince me that this is stable as well? Does your Linux have 64bit support... No. Im sure in time but, you cant escape this much performance loss. If you don't like OS X your screwed. If I don't like somthing in Linux I can change it. Hey what about IRIX. Is that also an option for MAC? LOL

"The same 3d pro apps that you are looking for such as for vid editing , photoshop, Lightwave etc... do not run on LInux."

Maya, XSI, Houdini --- all LINIX. Want me to name more? Recent articles in several sources & mags talk about crossover - win32 extensions for Linux running Office, Photoshop, etc with NO emulation.

As for the G5 in the professional field:

Who owns Pixar? Steve Jobs has a large interest in Pixar. If Apple and OS X are so great then why are XEON processors used in their rendering farms?

Apple just went 64bit. How long has SUN been?

What does Disney, Dreamworks, & ILM all run..... Maya Unlimited on Linux on AMD or Intel boxes.

Now a few questions for you i_wolf?

What films have you gotten credit for with your Mac?
What have you done professionaly?
Where is your experience gleaned from?

i_wolf
Dec 27, 2003, 09:19 PM
What films have i gotten credit for?... None personally. That does not mean that i have no knowledge of the vid editing world or do not have well regarded contacts. It would be elitist, snobby and ignorant to believe that because i do not work for a film house that i know nothing about vid editing as I'm sure you would agree. My experience is well founded however in my sister who works for RTE (the national broadcaster for television and radio in ireland) and is a parttime lecturer in DIT (dublin institute of technology) in the school of film and broadcasting (Aungier Street). She has taught me a lot of stuff about vid editing and compositing over the years. This has also enabled me to use some of the college equipment under her supervision from time to time when i was interested in learning about the latest and greatest.
I am also lucky to have a friend who works for MPC in london and is very knowledgeable of vid editing and compositing and a MASSIVE Final Cut Pro fan!. As for my experience with graphics packages well .. not quite based in film industry but gaming industry ... many years ago i did work experience in Havoc in Dublin. So i am familiar with a lot of the 3d packages there. Though a bit rusty.
Presently i'm a software developer working and learning something new every day with Math and encryption software.

So think of me as an extremely interested hobbyist always interesting is seeing whats new with vid editing and 3d modelling world!! :)

Before i answer the rest of your post; one thing concerns me that i would like to clear up oblivion. It would appear to me by directing those comments at the very end of your post that you were trying to say 'i have published work, i work for a film company, i have more experience'. None of which really establish the validity of the comments you or I made above; as such are meaningless. I'm sure you would agree that it's childish to get into a 'i work for x and have worked there for x days longer therefore i know more'. You don't need to compare job titles, companies to establish validity of data present. None of these questions you asked me establish the validity of my comments. Was this your intention or have i misread your intent. If so i apologise for misreading your closing comments and look forward to more debate with you... preferably without trading job titles, descriptions and rank inthe world! :)
Have a nice day.
Kind Regards,
i_wolf

P.S. I will reply to the rest of your post later, just wanted to clear up the closing comments.

i_wolf
Dec 28, 2003, 12:29 PM
I just checked out some of the reviews of the FireGL X2.... essentially the same hardware we find in the G5..... although importantly it is drivers you really pay for here.... i would imagine that apple are using ATI ref FireGL drivers for their 9800pro especially since with the recent 10.3.2 update perf improved greatly in 3d apps and games, but i found particularly in 3d apps.
Technically ATI's cards are nothing to be sniffed at. Most reviews i have seen have stated that the only thing that seams to be holding them back slightly is drivers that are not as good as the competition. while this is extremely important, most reviewers also note that ATI have come on leaps and bounds in performance with each revision of drivers. If i was doing pixel shading instensive rendering, I would much prefer to have an ATI or nVidia card in my machine than a WILCAT. They are simply more versatile. Thanks to the huge programmability of their pixel shading pipelines I would argue that they are more future proof for the price you pay. In terms of price / perf the ATI combo is definately hard to beat. I can well understand Apple's decision to go this route.... and i don't see it as any sort of problem that they didn't put an over priced, under specced WILDCAT VP in their machine. I would expect an ATI or nVidia card to easily match or exceed a WILDCAT offering when more mature drivers are available. Drivers for ATI are really improving at a very very fast rate. Especially when one looks at the rediculous prices charged by 3d labs. Further evidence of this was the high praise that a lot of high profile companies were lavishing on ATI's products at Sigraph this year. I think arguing that Apple don't have any quality 3d graphics offerings for workstations is unfair and clutching at straws.... assuming that Apple is using FireGL quality drivers for 3d Apps. Incidentally i havn't seen any reviews done with FireGL X2 and drivers of 19th November 2003 which are meant to be extremely fast.



Apple/FCP claims they don't drop frames. Surf around a few FCP boards and you'll see that dropped frames is one of the biggest problems with the app. Besides both Mac and PC loose to SGI Inferno.

9 streams with effects and no dropped frames? Nope


I have seen this done myself! Yes you can and do get 9 streams with effects on each stream... i tried it with color corection myself with some homemade DV just to be sure after I read your comment. Most people i saw who claimed that they weren't getting the full 9 streams were limited bytheir ram... in other words hard drive thrashing was causing a bottle neck and hence the reason for dropped frames. However if you provide adequate ram the potential is there in the beast to render 9 streams. There is absolutely NO x86 equiv that can come close to this level of productivity and efficiency in a software solution. The horsepower aint there. Now i know you can get break out boxes from AVID that would really be the way you would go if you could afford it but I am aguing the performance of the G5 in a software solution that is highly regarded and well used. And in similar situation nothing on x86 comes close. I even tested myself after your comments above to be 100% sure... i rendered 9 sample streams of the kids christening with full color correction on each stream. There were no dropped frames. I was at the 'power of panther' presentation where the the advertising agency who created the mini advert were present giving a demo of FCP with the G5 plugin... again in realtime they added effects to 9 streams and it rendered perfectly no dropped frames. So it can be done. There may be other mitigating factors as to why you have read that FCP can't do 9 streams with effects.
As for compositing ... while Shake may or may not be as high end as other solutions out there it is improving at a very very fast rate and currently both the combo of FCP , Shake and G5 do offer unparalleled performance at vid editing and compositing at a fraction of the price of a similarly performing solution.
As for SGI solution... well thats kind of a pointless example, since it is exponentially more expensive than any x86 or G5 solution. It aint even in the same ballpark in terms of price. Even still, having asked my sister, she said that she wouldn't touch the SGI solution, she would get a x86 or G5 with an AVID box instead. She told me that the avid/G5 or avid/x86 solution would be much cheaper and arguably as powerful. Still I/we really have gone off topic here bring SGI into the equation.

i_wolf
Dec 28, 2003, 12:32 PM
Lightwave is old news. What portion of the film market does it command? Try running Renderman using Lightwave.... NO. It is nothing compared to Maya Unlimited, Houdini OR Softimage XSI. Lightwave is ancient, Why is Maya used as the Princible modeller for Pixar's movies and animation along with Inhouse tools?

Where is Maya Unlimited for OS X... it hasn't been released and no signs of life. Infact where is Hudini or XSI for Os X? They are both higher end then Maya.


Lightwave is not old news. There is more than the film industry out there ;) The gaming industry and game design industry which i would have more experience with uses Lightwave regularly and it is a very good application. I believe that Lucasarts uses Lightwave extensively for many of its products like Jedi Academy etc... for modelling many of the characters. As such Lightwave is a very relevant app to be mentioning since it is used extensively by the gaming industry.
Renderman however is used extensively by the film industry and again that is another app that runs on the Mac. I'm told but dont have first hand experience that presently Renderman is much much faster on the G5 than the opteron or xeon equiv. Again though, you wanted example of 3d pro apps that Apple can say runs on os x and their machines... this is another one.
As for Maya, you are correct there is no Maya unlimited. At sigraph I believe rumors were circulating that Maya unlimited is coming sooner than later to the Mac platform. I would definately imagine that this will come to pass now that apple have a powerful Unix workstation on the market in the G5. However you are right, presently I cannot go into the shop and buy Maya unlimited but i can still buy maya complete. Maya complete is however marketed at the 3d pro workstation market by alias so it is relevant to what we are talking about here. The point being that you wanted examples of 3d apps which you claimed were non existant on the Mac platform. Seamingly they do exist :) Hudini and XSI... well i completely disagree about Houdini being more high end than any of the alias packages ... but on that note we will agree to differ. However on the XSI front ... yes you are correct it is not presently avail for Apple, but there are app's avail for apple that will do the job probably as well... It would be nice to see XSI on Apple G5 , but again I would imagine that this will come in time since apple now have some serious hardware and operating system to run these kinds of apps on... it is an extremely attractive platform.
There are other 3d apps from luxology , there are CAD apps like archicad, autocad etc.. which are all avail on Mac. Incidentally i don't fancy running Maya unlimited on winxp, or win 2k. I have found that they are resource hogs on winxp and 2k, forget multitasking reliably while working with a big render. Forget stability. Ok .. then... you were saying that you could move to linux and use the linux versions of these apps. Thats a good idea. I use Gentoo myself on dual Xeons at home and its a fantastic OS, however driver support for most of these pro graphics cards you mentioned is horrible under linux. Add to that, Xserver is old, extremely buggy and fairly bloated. It still doesn't support true alpha blending or transparancies in the OS or apps, these types of effects have to be done in software. Most of the apps you mentioned also tend to run faster in windows than linux due to driver support prob. I don't know how often the command 'start x' gets typed into the terminal while im using any type of 3d app on linux. X aint well known for its reliability. I would much much prefer to be using a 3d app on top of a UNIX OS like OS X which has at its core hardware acceleration in QUARTZ EXTREME that is extremely fast AND reliable. If i need X apps to run i can in panther and they get hardware accelerated and X is extremely stable on OS X. This would definately be a platform of choice for 3d apps IMO. It also appears that I am not alone in this when you consider the high number of apps that are being ported to OS X on a daily basis.



FireGL is NOT fully Maya certified. Quitebuggy. Try oppening a million polly scene on the FireGL. Maya is a joke on FireGL and shouldn't be compared to Wildcat cards which are FULL OpenGL 2. Your comparing apples to oranges. Do a google on the performance diffrences.


Correction the FireGL is certified with the drivers i mentioned above. 19th of November 2003. MAYA 5 certified. Also I asked a mate of mine with this card what the perf is like in 3d S MAX , MAYA etc.. on x86 .. he said that the perf improvements is considerable and raved incoherently about the price perf of the card. Feel free to take this with a grain of salt until you test yourself however... i would.
Anyway this is kina pointless because this is x86 platform ... what does matter is whether MAYA on Mac runs smoothly with Apples '9800pro'. Tried , tested.. it does! :) I took your advice on the google search... I found a lot of rave reviews for the X2 FIRE GL. However like most new hardware its performance will only really be realised with more mature drivers. I couldn't find anything on the new drivers from ATI which according to ATI provide substantial perf improvements. These drivers are also supposed to fix the problem with high poly scenes where performance would suddently drop off. I would argue to you that the FireGL is a much much more programmable card than the WILDCAT VP. It is also more than half the price of the wildcat.... and is extremely competetive. Assuming that Apple are using the FireGL standard drivers with OS X then this was a very very wise choice of hardware on their behalf. One thing i would like to point out is that while the wildcat Vp supports OPEN GL 2 ,it does not implement all of its functionality in hardware. The ATI and nVidia cards implement more of the OPEN GL 2 standard in hardware than the VP from 3dlabs. They are also much more programmable and have more flexible pipelines than the VP tech, so more so in future apps their performance should improve. Worth noting i believe.

Do i sense a performance loss? Your also going to convince me that this is stable as well? Does your Linux have 64bit support... No. Im sure in time but, you cant escape this much performance loss. If you don't like OS X your screwed. If I don't like somthing in Linux I can change it. Hey what about IRIX. Is that also an option for MAC? LOL

What exactly are you talking about. I mentioned that you can run linux on G5 platform if you want as well. There is flavour from gentoo, yellowdog linux etc.. presently but they are very beta at present. The G5 is a radically new platform... what do you expect, it will take some time for them to improve. What exactly do you want to change about OS X??? What exactly is your point? Why would you want to, its extremely well integrated with the hardware and both run happily together. Are you talking about building it from scratch like you can with Gentoo?? You can i think, if you don't want the graphics interface... you can download the source kernel from the darwin project and then build around that if you want to? Is this what you are talking about? If there is something that you don't like... why dont you join the darwin project and make some constructive submissions and suggestions to the open source community and apple there who developed OSX. I would emphasise the use of constructive criticisms here because it woudl appear to me that you are desperately looking for things to use as leverage for criticising OSX and the G5 unfairly and without proper research.Personally i love building , tweaking etc... on linux. I run Gentoo on PC and will dual boot my G5 when Gentoo is more mature. I have found that i havn't found a need to alter anything fundamental yet in OS X. What part of OS X or UNIX/LINUX do you need to alter?? I have my custom shell scripts and i have built some of the X apps that i needed with GCC 3.3 and some with XLC and XLF. I also have access to the darwin ports and fink ports collection for when im lazy! What exactly is you problem with OSX?
"The same 3d pro apps that you are looking for such as for vid editing , photoshop, Lightwave etc... do not run on LInux."

Maya, XSI, Houdini --- all LINIX. Want me to name more? Recent articles in several sources & mags talk about crossover - win32 extensions for Linux running Office, Photoshop, etc with NO emulation.
I am well aware that there is a LINUX version available. However as i already stated above you sacrifice speed for reliability with the Linux platform (bar the SGI option)... and the biggest problem with Graphical apps like the ones you mentioned on Linux is the X Server. The point i was making was that there are even fewer commercial pro apps like the onces you mentioned for vid editing , 3d animation, modelling, rendering available for linux than there is for OS X. Please don't insult my intelligence by arguing for the sake of arguing that SGI Irix runs a lot of commercial vid editing apps... these are for IRIX only and made by SGI to run on their OS and their hardware; hardware that is exponentially more expensive than that made by apple and wintel. Is there a vid editing and compositing software that is commerically available for a typical linux x86 or PPC workstation??? Please tell me if there is i would love to find it. I am also aware of the WINE project and running some apps like office on linux. However it still stands that OS X is the only UNIX platform that has native MS Office support. And has native support for (like it or not) MS standards like WMP etc..
As far as emulation of windows goes well there is Virtua pc 7 to be released in jan with G5 support.

Oblivion
Jan 16, 2004, 11:59 AM
Here are benchmarks proving that the high end FireGl is nothing compared to the competition of the other Pro Grafics cards.

http://www20.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030123/opengl_nv28_fgl9700-13.html <--- this is a hair old but still shows the FireGL 128mb version to be slow.

http://www.3dchips.net/content/review.php?id=63&page=18 <---- These are the benchmarks that count since Maya is involved. These tests were on an intel sys.

http://www.3dchips.net/content/review.php?id=63&page=17 <----- Once again with Maya. Same tests except done on AMD sys.

You wont get good maya results with a FireGL

Here is another from Tom demonstrating Maya with the FireGL X2 256.

http://www20.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030916/opengl-19.html

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/print/3dsmax5-quadrofx3000.html

I think you and your friend are too enthused with the Mac market that you are soo blinded by the truth that you will believe in anything even when evidence has been provided. As I said before... FireGL is a joke in Maya.

If your going to use your sisters Television company that she works for as a grounds to prove your point about Lightwave then just stop. Lightwave is mediocre in quality and ANCIENT compared to the programs that I mentioned before. zzzzzz

Show me proof where Jedi Academy was all made using Lightwave?

In this field you are GIVEN the hardware of your choice meanning you can choose any video card you want along with any system. Is it any wonder why Return Of the King was made on 220 linux systems, 125 SGI, 50 WinNt, 15 Macs? Oh your probably going to say somthing to counter this. Well I'll provide proof.

http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1047582857

If your about best performance for the price then yea I will take either 9800 pro256mb and 128mb over the other pro cards and oc it but, you dont get that luxury with Mac. Not that isnt substancial grounds to say whats better then what while ocing but, I have that extra option just like the added options in gamming with a pc over Mac. Who cares about that.

I would lastly like to point out that the 9800 pro 128mb is OLD and thats the best the G5 has to offer. This is the problem with Mac. Since there is no variety in hardware then whatever you do have within the system is already dated. Since time is worth more then money then I would rather have more open options in the professional market.

snickelfritz
Jan 16, 2004, 01:48 PM
The difference in benchmarks between the various processors indicates that some are slower than others, but they are all too slow.
For example, run a radial blur on a 300dpi tabloid document; none of the CPU's tested can do it in realtime.
ie: you take a shorter coffee-break with the fastest CPU's, but it still amounts to a coffee-break.

10 years from now, this obsession with benchmarking will seem very quaint, and totally irrelevant to the most important issues at hand:
software design and human interface engineering.
In this respect, Apple is way ahead of the industry, and their hardware is certainly fast enough to run current software as effectively as anything else out there.

BTW, IMO Apple should include at least the QuadroFX 1000 as a BTO option for running hardware overlays in programs like Maya.

manitoublack
Jan 18, 2004, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
But this isn't all that bad - imagine if we didn't have a G5 and were still stuck with the G4s.....;)

At least now we're more competitive....

D

Words of wisdome from our communities most prolific poster.

Q: DOSE IT REALLY MATTER.

A: NO, since this thread has been posted somany times, the debate has raged on since 20 years ago and until the MAC OS is avaliable on x86, or Windows avaliable on PPC, then the debate wont be settled.

Only true benchmark at this time is on Linux 64, using server based apps which have little influnence on the consumer market.


The Sega Dreamcast (released in 1998) runs a 200MHz NEC RISC cpu, has a 128bit graphics core and still plays games better than the latest and greatest desktop computers. If you don't believe me play sonic 2 on it.

So the point is that it's horses for courses, pick the right tool for the job, Blah blah blah...

oldschool
Jan 18, 2004, 02:10 AM
Who cares? I don't think anybody here bought an apple because it was faster.

Oblivion
Jan 18, 2004, 10:03 AM
"The Sega Dreamcast (released in 1998) runs a 200MHz NEC RISC cpu, has a 128bit graphics core and still plays games better than the latest and greatest desktop computers. If you don't believe me play sonic 2 on it."

You're getting Color Depth and Bus Width mixed up.

1) Voodoo Banshee is capable of only 16-bit color, but the memory bus is 128-bit.

2) Voodoo5 5500 is capable of 32-bit color, but the memory bus is 256-bit (dual processors with 128-bit per graphics chip).

3) The most common PC video card bus widths now are 64-bit, 128-bit, and 256-bit.

4) 128-bit color for PC video cards has been out a year or two, but 128-bit video memory bus has been around for many years.

Let's run thru this "console vs PC" thing. 1) You are a game coder and you have to do a game for the X-Box. You have one platform of hardware that will not change at all until a new console version is released. Your graphics hardware and driver are a given. Set in stone. 2) You are a game coder and you have to code for at least major video chipsets and your code must be able to scale from the slower than average PC to the middle of the road PC and then be able to take advantage of the best PC hardware possible and be able to do all this without having a locked in video chipset as your target platform

Lets also not forget the fact that consoles are 640x480. Run any pc game at that res and see how bad it looks compared to a higher res.

pgwalsh
Jan 18, 2004, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by oldschool
Who cares? I don't think anybody here bought an apple because it was faster. Exactly.. If all we cared about was speed, we'd all be weenies. Just like dem utter folks on dah dark side. Dem boys like speed and blue screens. y'nah... Just can't figure dem out.

Not that we want to be left behind, but that's not the number one reason.

Oblivion
Jan 18, 2004, 02:54 PM
Who says XP is bad for multiprocessing?

I did a test to push my 3.0c @ 3.5ghz and this was the setup:

Perfect disk doing its defragmentation
45 Instances of IE
Nero burning a cd w/buffer underrun protection disabled
UT running in the back bot match 16 bots, 1024x768
WMP9 and WMP6.4 both running xvid videos
Winamp playing an mp3
Bit torrent downloading
Hyper Cam capping a 1024x644 of real time video of the screen
Prime95 doing a torture test
1 instance of IRC

ALL RUNNING at ONCE for 1 hour without any errors from Prime95 and no buffer underrunsl Cpu temps were at 51c MAX using stock Intel Heatsink.

The results are from my personal configuration and custom installation of XP. Doing this used up all my cpu usage and alot of my physical and virtual memory. This was the max number of processes I could run before it wouldnt open any more applications. Even at this limit I was still able to go into UT and play in the Bot match that I had running. I had this running for more then 30 minutes. I had to put in more discs for nero since my burner is 16x about 5.30 minutes to burn a cd.

The ONLY time I ever see a Blue Screen is when I oc the pc at a 5:4 divider or 3:2. When im at 1:1 its as equaly as stable as stock speed.

Where is the instability in xp from multitasking? Give me a simular scenario for OSX. If anyone is interested I can post a link to the video or simply take a screen shot of the screen.

Independence
Jan 18, 2004, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
Exactly.. If all we cared about was speed, we'd all be weenies. Just like dem utter folks on dah dark side. Dem boys like speed and blue screens. y'nah... Just can't figure dem out.
I hope you were being sarcastic with that comment.

Seriously, no computer is perfect (yes, a Mac is a computer, not a god). The old stereotype that a PC is a beige box running Windows 9x/ME has to die. Windows XP is just as stable as Mac OS X. If Windows XP or Mac OS X seem to be crashing for no damn reason, then there's either a problem with the hardware or the user.

pgwalsh
Jan 18, 2004, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Independence
I hope you were being sarcastic with that comment.

Seriously, no computer is perfect (yes, a Mac is a computer, not a god). The old stereotype that a PC is a beige box running Windows 9x/ME has to die. Windows XP is just as stable as Mac OS X. If Windows XP or Mac OS X seem to be crashing for no damn reason, then there's either a problem with the hardware or the user. If you can't tell that I was being sarcastic then you need help..

Independence
Jan 18, 2004, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
If you can't tell that I was being sarcastic then you need help..
I can never tell if a human is being sarcastic due to the many masks they hide behind.

pgwalsh
Jan 18, 2004, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Independence
I can never tell if a human is being sarcastic due to the many masks they hide behind. haha.. well anyway... :rolleyes: You should be able to tell just from the way I wrote it. But since we're all hiding behind masks, then maybe not.. :rolleyes:

virividox
Jan 18, 2004, 03:51 PM
fight fight fight

it will be a never ending debate...who cares who is faster all i care about is i get to do things i want to do and cant do on a windows pee ceee

Independence
Jan 18, 2004, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
haha.. well anyway... :rolleyes: You should be able to tell just from the way I wrote it. But since we're all hiding behind masks, then maybe not.. :rolleyes:
You've got a real attitude problem.

pgwalsh
Jan 18, 2004, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Independence
You've got a real attitude problem. Look.. I apologize I was kidding around... I really find if funny.. But you don't and I don't want to hurt your feelings.

zoetropeuk
Jan 18, 2004, 04:18 PM
These Photoshop, rendering and 3D tests only go to prove the lack of expertise in optimising apps for the G5.

If you look at Apples performance figures (http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/) you will get a more accurate overview of the potential of the G5 and not a test of how well software is written. I understand that we can only use what developers create and if Adobe creates a faster version of PS on the PC then it's obvious that the PC benchmarks are going to be faster.

If that's the case then these threads should be titled:

Adobe's PC dev team VS Adobe's Mac dev team and not P4 V Athlon vs G5

For a more accurate measure of actual CPU performance you need to look at highly optimised code libraries available on All platforms. You need to find code that each platform vendor has had, the time, money and expertise to make their respective CPU architecture looks as impressive as possible.

A good set of code libraries do exist in the form of FFT or fast fourier transforms. These highly optimised code libraries and algorithms are at the heart of every decent app used for video, audio and imaging. Each vendor has now had the time to fully optimise their own libraries to compile and execute as fast as humanly possible. Each vendor is allowed and has used every trick up their sleeve to make their CPU work as fast as possible.

And you will agree that the benchmarks are very surprising indeed. Here is an overview of the results that are linked to below (from slowest - fastest):

These are peak results for double precision 1D transforms measured in mflops

Single 400Mhz G3____________________415
Quad 500Mhz PIII____________________500
Single 500Mhz Ultrasparc IIe____________810
Single 733Mhz G4____________________985
Dual 833Mhz Alpha Eu6_______________1600
Dual AMD Athalon XP1700_____________1650
Dual 1.4Ghz AMD Opteron 240 - 32-bit____1730
Dual 1.4Ghz AMD Opteron 240 - 64-bit____2075
Dual 2.0Ghz AMD Opteron 246 - 32-bit____2400
Dual 2.0Ghz AMD Opteron 246 - 64-bit____2900
Dual 2.2Ghz Xeon____________________2900
Dual 900Mhz Itanium II________________3025
Dual 2.8Ghz Xeon____________________3900
Dual 2.8Ghz Xeon New Code libraries______3900
Dual 2.0Ghz G5______________________4000

These are peak results for single precision 1D transforms

Dual 2.0Ghz AMD Opteron 246 - 64-bit___4300
Dual 2.8Ghz Xeon___________________6900
Dual 2.0Ghz G5____________________10000

These result make it perfectly obvious that the G5 under highly optimised conditions is by far the superior CPU architecture. The full benchmarks including all source code used is freely available from the following site FFTW (http://www.fftw.org/speed/) . You will also see that this site has NO affiliation or preference for any particular platform. Their goal is to simply create the fastest possible FFT libraries for as many platforms as possible.

From the above figures the Dual G5 is:

144% faster then the Dual Xeon and
232% faster then the Opteron .

These results also have to do with the fact that Apple has produced the fastest FFT code library currently available anywhere, fullstop. These Apple code libraries are also the reason why FCP, DVD Studio Pro and Apple's other Pro apps are the fastest in their respective fields. If Apple were to release a competitor to PS I would stake my life on the fact that it would trounce any crappy Adobe version, even running on the fastest PC available.

So please stop pretending that these other published benchmarks are anything more than a test of the software and how well it is written.

Oblivion
Jan 18, 2004, 11:13 PM
zoetropeuk:
Please do not say that using the Apple site itself is nonBiased when it comes to accurate tests. I already posted a link proving otherwise. BTW where are you getting your numbers for all the processors? Barefeats is also a bit biased after more extensive research leanning only towards Mac. I wouldn't link sites to any Microsoft area if they ran a benchmark cause it would also be as lame. I can't think of one program that will run equal on both platforms.

Its said the G5 is getting its next boost in speed in the summer so if we say June then that would mean if anyone buys a G5 now then they will have the same tech for the same price as the time when it was introduced in August whereas the competition introduces faster speeds for their processors every 3 months. This really doesnt matter that much but, I am one that isnt interested in buying tech thats almost a year old if I am to pay top dollor for performance. I cant tell the speed diffrence when comparing an amd 3200xp from a p4 3.0c but, I can if we were using a p4 3.0b which was introduced 7 months prior to the 3.0c.

virividox:
What can't you do on a Win Pc that you can on OS X?

Rower_CPU
Jan 19, 2004, 01:47 AM
Haxial is not an un-biased site either. Benchmarks, like statistics, can be made to show whatever you want.

Apple is marketing their machines and is using data that shows what they want. People should be checking with Veritest, not railing at Apple.

Oblivion
Jan 19, 2004, 02:15 AM
Veritest is also a fraud.

Reread the link I first posted when i entered this forum. Ill repost it just so you dont have to search.

http://spl.haxial.net/apple-powermac-G5/

mj_1903
Jan 19, 2004, 03:28 AM
Originally posted by Oblivion
Veritest is also a fraud.

Reread the link I first posted when i entered this forum. Ill repost it just so you dont have to search.

http://spl.haxial.net/apple-powermac-G5/

They were proven by most of the Slashdot crowd to be very wrong. Simply read the test results posted by veritest and you can see that most of their main points were incorrect.

Now as for this pissing contest. It's probably a good idea to end it on this point:

An IBM PC running x86 architecture is in the end going to be faster than a Mac simply because of the choice of chips, motherboards, ram, and other I/O. This of course does not mention the wads of money behind the Wintel monopoly.

I use a Mac for two reasons:
- A PowerMac G5 is a compiling beast
- A PowerMac G5 runs Mac OS X

My personal prefernence. I don't run it because its the world's fastest personal computer. I have a PC for games but I get my real work done on my PowerMac.

At the end of the day I will use what gets the job done. I switched from Windows because Mac OS X got my job done faster. I will switch back to PC if it does my job better, but right now Mac OS X is assisting me more than Windows does.

When Longhorn finally comes out, I will sit down and use it and compare it to Mac OS 10.7 and make another decision.

zoetropeuk
Jan 19, 2004, 03:34 AM
Originally posted by Oblivion
BTW where are you getting your numbers for all the processors?

but if it's not obvious enough then here it is again:
http://www.fftw.org/speed/

Have fun discrediting these results :D

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that the app's benchmarked aren't faster on a PC. That much is quite clear unfortunately. But it simply doesn't prove that the underlying architecture is faster. It simply proves that the apps ARE faster.

Now the results that I've posted do prove without a doubt that the dual 2Ghz G5 is the fastest machine currently available.

Like I said in my above post, these optimised libraries form the core processing ability behind most major video, 3D and image processing apps. If Adobe were to use Apples vImage and vDsp libraries in their apps then the Photoshop benchmarks would be very different indeed.

i_wolf
Jan 19, 2004, 01:17 PM
Those tests you wre comparing are interesting on a number of points. As already stated... macworld/pcworld did not use uniform tests. This is probably the only place where you will see results of the G5 have its ass kicked.
When you look at the tests its obvious why
Adobe Premiere was killed years ago on mac. Last i heard it was a'Classic ' application ... non SMP aware (so no benefit of dual cpu's). So they compared an unoptimized old version of premiere on mac... made the mac run it in essentially emulation mode (classic is emulation mode ..is it not?) and the app is still non SMP in theversion used on mac. They then compared the performance against the latest OPTIMIZED version of premiere on the PC. And from this they deduced that the G5 was twice as slow as the competition!!! Thats some journalism. For a start they didn't tell readers that it was running in Classic mode (emulation)... they didn't tell readers that whenever you run an app in emulation mode on mac, pc or any other platform there is a big performance penalty. They didn't tell readers that they were comparing version say 5 on mac with latest version say10 on pc.
Want to dig deeper...... Look at the MP3 encoding tests. Spot the flaw there yet? Well here's the problem... they didn't use the same mp3 encoding app on each platform. Hell the different apps use different mp3 encoders. Music match on pc beat out the competition. Im not surprised. its mp3 codec is tuned for speed not quality. Ask the guys over at hydrogen audio. They should have taken a cross platform mp3 encoder and compared results with say LAME. Just to reiterate what im ranting about... you can encode mp3 nearly 3 times faster on my Opterons with musicmatch than you can with EAC and Lame.
Looking at the other tests they used.... Games... well the mac is never gonna compete properly with games... regardless of a 10GHz G5 i would imagine PC's will have faster games... purely from the porting issue involved with games to the mac. Most games ported to the mac are sloppy ports and completely unoptimized. Regardless mac's are not bought for games. However at the very least when benchmarking games they should have used the same video card in all machines. They didn't. I would imagine that performance in the benchmarks run would be very different now if they were to rebench since apple has released new vid drivers in X.3.2 which saw huge FPS increases across the board in games.
One could then point out recent bench's over at barefeats which saw the G5 kicking booty. These are probably more credible results because at least they chose modern apps that are cross platform and compared. The G5 won all tests bar the one!
If we wanted to make things even more interesting we could point out that already the G5 is running in a 'worst case scenario' .... radically new architecture, with little compiler support except from XLC and XLF. It has very few apps with any kind of G5 awareness. Meanwhile AMD's Opteron automatically leverages existing Athlon optimizations since its essentially and athlon xp with SSE2, x86-64 and memory controller. Intel has made such a big push of SSE2 in pc apps that both P4 and Opteron automatically take advantage of this bonus. In terms of comiler support there is lots optimizations in GCC presently for Intel and AMD. Much more so that there is PPC support. Still in most tests the G5 keeps up or beats both.
Now take a look at recent results of apps that have merely been recompiled with XLC and XLF (IBM's G5 compiler)... performance in a lot of apps went up 2 to three times the performance of the GCC 3.3 'G5 optimized' binaries. Great example was the Jet3d program, and the Extreme Fluid Dynamics. With a recompile with XLC, the resulting binary ran 3 times faster than with GCC3.3's most settings.
Point being ... G5 is presently completely untapped and only now is see compiler support that is good enough. I reckon hence forth we will be seeing much bigger gaps in performance from recompiled apps on G5 compared with x86 equivalents.
If like me you use Open Source software and are willing to recompile apps whether for x86, or PPC or other platform, then without any doubt the G5 IS the fastest workstation or desktop you can buy sub 4000 or 5000 pounds. And probably the chip/platform with the most performance to be unlocked over the coming months.

LethalWolfe
Jan 19, 2004, 04:28 PM
Oblivion,

If you are cutting DV only yes you can find PC solutions that cost less than Mac solutions. But if you need to work with uncompressed SD or HD video the PC options become fewer and more expensive. When working w/SD or HD media a Mac + FCP is actually on the lower end of the price scale.

All NLE's, at one time or another, drop frames for a variety of reasons (most of the time resulting from user error). I've never heard of FCP having any problem of dropping frames more than other NLE's. On any given day I bet I could go to a support forum for any NLE and find posts about dropped frames. And of those I find I bet the vast majority of them are related to incorrect settings and/or storage/HDD issues.

Why did you bring up Flame and Inferno when others were talking about FCP? Flame and Inferno are very hi-end, very expensive FX/Compositors. FCP is an NLE w/above average compositing ability. Apples and organes man. I should hope Flame and Inferno are better compositors than FCP is.

And since you brought up FCP in the professional world. Starting a couple of years ago I noticed post houses replacing their Avid Xpress' and/or Media Composers they used for off-lining projects w/FCP and just keeping a Symphony or Smoke/Flame set-up to finish them on. Off the top of my head the TV show "Scrubs", the movies "Rules of Attraction", "Full Frontal", "Cold Mountain", and "Intolerable Cruelty" all were cut/are being cut on FCP. The Coen Brothers ("Intolerable Cruelty") have already said they plan to edit their next feature on FCP as well. And FCP has become the Indie/documentary filmmaker's weapon of choice.

If you think a faster machine inherently makes a better NLE you are mistaken. Speed may be the Queen but software and stability are King when it comes to NLE's. You will still find a surprising number of 5 or 6 year old PowerMac 9600 based Avids still cranking out your favorite commercials, movies, and TV shows. Needless to say those systems are still around because they are fast.

/rant


Lethal

Oblivion
Jan 19, 2004, 05:08 PM
Yea hmm Im going to have to dissagree greatly on this site.

http://www.fftw.org/speed/

First.... These are purly synthetic benchmarks which prove nothing.

Second.... If the Dual Xeon 2.8 is doing well against the G5 then why wasnt the dual 3.0 used? I mean are we just going to exclude the 3.0 all together even if the G5 still wins in this bogus test? After all we are taking a test of "current" processors aren't we?

This looks like another of the many biased sites used to be in favor of Mac.

As for Barefeats... Ill save my reasearch and just quote a little somthing from a member from this site.

cr2sh
"I thought we decided to ignore everything that barefeats has to say? They are not a reputable source at all, their tests are flawed and they have little metadata at all.... why even bother?"

PCWorld Benchmark.. well thats also another bogus test just like the rest of the bunch.

zoetropeuk
Jan 19, 2004, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Oblivion
First.... These are purely synthetic benchmarks which prove nothing. The biggest problem is your lack of intelligence and complete misunderstanding with regards to the benchmarks I linked to.

The FFT benchmarks test the absolute processing performance of the CPU that they are tested on. They take away the variables that are introduced when comparing apps developed by different people to run on different platforms. In simple terms these routines level the playing field. So how are they synthetic ? These core routines are used in some guise in every video, imaging or audio app on any platform you wish to compare. So these results are extremely relevant to the true potential of each platform.

If you spend the time to analyse the results you will see that each chip manufacturer has supplied their own highly optimised FFT routines to be benched against.
If Intel and AMD can't fully optimise the code to fully exploit their own CPUs then who can?Originally posted by Oblivion
This looks like another of the many biased sites used to be in favour of Mac.

How is this site biased in favour of Apple. Anybody can download the code and run the benchmarks for themselves. The developers don't even use Macs. They were supplied a Dual G5 and simply ran the benchmarks to compare their own code.

They are not out to prove that one platform is better then the other, the simple goal is to compare their own FFT routines to the other freely available and vendor supplied code. They even freely admit that Apple's own FFT routines are the best in the industry. This to me shows a completely unbiased attitude towards Apple and their own results.Originally posted by Oblivion
Second.... If the Dual Xeon 2.8 is doing well against the G5 then why wasn't the dual 3.0 used? I mean are we just going to exclude the 3.0 all together even if the G5 still wins in this bogus test? After all we are taking a test of "current" processors aren't we?

Well until somebody supplies them with a Dual 3Ghz Xeon then there is not much we can do. They haven't deliberately excluded it from the test, they just haven't had the opportunity to run the benchmarks yet. The dual 3Ghz Xeon is only going to be 10-15% faster anyway so overall the dual G5 still wins hands down.

You just have to be man enough to face the facts.

Oblivion
Jan 19, 2004, 06:22 PM
"The FFT benchmarks test the absolute processing performance of the CPU that they are tested on. They take away the variables that are introduced when comparing apps developed by different people to run on different platforms. In simple terms these routines level the playing field. So how are they synthetic ? These core routines are used in some guise in every video, imaging or audio app on any platform you wish to compare. So these results are extremely relevant to the true potential of each platform."

That's true but, it ignores memory access times and the fact that operating systems do things differently. If your benchmark is aimed towards finding how fast a system does office tasks, the best benchmark is how fast office works. FFT benchmarks are a ****ty way of determining which system runs video games the best. That's why there are so many benchmarking utils aimed at certain things, such as 3dmark.

Cross-Platform benchmarking with an fft is insane. Any realistic software program is so far from the hardware that it won't mean anything. Not to mention compilers

It accurately measures how fast a given system can do an fft, i'll give it that but, real world performance, blabla

MrMacMan
Jan 19, 2004, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by Oblivion
Veritest is also a fraud.

Reread the link I first posted when i entered this forum. Ill repost it just so you dont have to search.

http://spl.haxial.net/apple-powermac-G5/


Read the post above you...

Haxial is not an un-biased site either. Benchmarks, like statistics, can be made to show whatever you want.

Apple can maniupulate... Haxial can do the same.


But the fact is, an independent firm has NO reason to lie.

At all.


End of story.

GOOD DAY SIR.

Oblivion
Jan 19, 2004, 09:13 PM
I agree that some sites are trying to manipulate the results to suite their needs for the benefit of what they like over the competition. I've yet to find an honest Apple vs Pc site that doesnt lean in 1 direction everytime when clearly there are claims elsewhere to prove otherwise.

As for Hex...
Lets exclude what he claims to be faster then what along with the results he provides in his comparison and only include the many facts that he provides with evidence that Mac manipulated the test setup. That in itself is enough to convince me that Apple and Veritest are both frauds for displaying inaccurate results.

Rower_CPU
Jan 19, 2004, 10:00 PM
I assume you're familiar with Joswiak's response to all those crying "foul" over compilers, settings, etc.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/31416.html

From what I've seen, it pretty much negates the opinion piece on Haxial. Plenty of good discussion has taken place over at ArsTechnica's forums' Mac section (http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/ubb.x?a=frm&s=50009562&f=8300945231), where there are lots of people who really know their stuff when it comes to processors.

Oblivion
Jan 20, 2004, 12:50 AM
LeathelWolf:
"But if you need to work with uncompressed SD or HD video the PC options become fewer and more expensive."

How do you figure that? I not only have the same options as you in HD's but, the ability to add more then 2 hds making my total uncompressed video storage more widespread. Like having 2 250gb hd's is not enough as it is already but, I do have that extra option unless theres somthing I don't know about.

"When working w/SD or HD media a Mac + FCP is actually on the lower end of the price scale."

Now we are going for best bang for the buck. Ok I built my pc around the 1k range which is as follows..

P4 3.0c = $270
1gb Cosair 3700ddr ram = $280
Asus P4p800 Mobo = $130
Antec Tower w/PSu extra 120mm fan = $80
2x250gb hd WD 7200rpm 8mb cache = $225x2= $450
Sony Dvd burner = $150
ATI 9800 AIW = $339

This is a total of $1,699 w/o Montior all www.Newegg.com prices. Now we add Avid Xpress Pro which is $1,695 and we get a grand total of $3,394w/o monitor.

The entry level G5 1.6ghz stock is $1,799. Obviously we will have to add ram since more ram is better for video editing and give it 2x250gb HDs. Now the price is $2,824 w/o monitor. Lets now add FCP $999 and we get $3,823

Im obviously getting more bang for the buck in the same Pc category. I even have a better quality built machine. I can do anything you do as far as Video editing plus the extra ability to do 3d animation with my tweaked Radeon. You will have to add $350 to the finnal price to utilize the same video card as me. Where is the analog svideo input on any of the radeon cards offered for any G5? I also get that extra bonus.

If you are to use the Mac for the comfort of OS prefrence then thats understadable but, just know how much of a price diffrence you will be paying. I obviously showed above how XP is Stable while doing multiprocessing under the heaviest cpu stress so please dont attempt to belittle XP in terms of stability. Im still more then happy to send anyone a real time video if they arent convinced.

"Why did you bring up Flame and Inferno when others were talking about FCP?"

Well I just thought I would add an added feature the x86 has over the Mac in terms of professional work.

I will also add the Ease of use with FCP with its GUI just like OSX. That doesnt make it any better then what I can do.


Rower_CPU:

This is Tony on day 1 going against the claims....

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/31405.html

And this is Tony the next day with a sudden change of thought.....

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/31416.html

Makes you wonder who this guy is really working for.

You may want to look at this site which also claims otherwise.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1136018,00.asp

Rower_CPU
Jan 20, 2004, 01:02 PM
Oblivion-

Tony Smith is reporting stories. He's not changing his opinion. How about you deal with Joswiak's statements instead of attacking the person reporting them?

That other site is a PC-centric site and does not deal with Joswiak's statements either.

For someone crying over an Apple-bias in the G5 benchmarks, you're doing a really bad job finding objective sources that go against them.

Oblivion
Jan 20, 2004, 03:18 PM
My Mistake on Tony.

"That other site is a PC-centric site and does not deal with Joswiak's statements either."

Are you going to deny the Spec numbers provided on this site which go against the numbers that were provided in favor of Apple against PC? If so then this is turning into a debate about who believes what.

Rower_CPU
Jan 20, 2004, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Oblivion
My Mistake on Tony.

"That other site is a PC-centric site and does not deal with Joswiak's statements either."

Are you going to deny the Spec numbers provided on this site which go against the numbers that were provided in favor of Apple against PC? If so then this is turning into a debate about who believes what.

Hasn't that what this has always been?

It's marketing, folks. Every side is going to spin the numbers to make themselves look the best. Apple to get sales and Apple fans to talk up their system. PC makers to keep sales and PC fans to put down Apple.

I'd still like to hear what you have to say about Joswiak's statements. He deals directly with all the discussion about settings that everyone got worked up about.

Oblivion
Jan 20, 2004, 04:31 PM
To answer what I think about Joswiak's statements, I'll just quote Mark Hachman from the site I posted.

"If you've designed the best system, prove it. Open it up for examination. Publish the benchmarks. Back up your claims. Don't leave room for doubting Thomases like myself to poke through testing documents and raise questions questions that we'll hopefully be able to persuade Apple to respond to."

Rower_CPU
Jan 20, 2004, 04:38 PM
Joswiak's statements came out the day after that was posted, so Hachman's point is rendered moot and has nothing to do with what Joswiak said.

Do you have any words of your own?

Oblivion
Jan 20, 2004, 04:59 PM
The only thing I can relate to Joswiak's statements is this....

"I am not a crook" - Richard Nixon

Rower_CPU
Jan 20, 2004, 05:02 PM
Fine, thanks for letting us know why you're here.

DNFTT, folks.