Power Mac G5 Quad Benchmarks

[slooksterPSV]

16GB, DDR2 SDRAM Memory, 400MHz, ECC (6 DIMMS) [add $23,300]

Easy - two 4 GiB DIMMs, and 4 2 GiB DIMMs.... (note that 12 GiB is only $9.2K)
Sorry you're wrong, they have 8 slots: Memory
128-bit memory controller and data paths
512MB of 533MHz DDR2 SDRAM (PC2-4200)
Eight DIMM slots supporting up to 16GB of main memory
Support for the following DIMMs (in pairs):
256MB DIMMs (64-bit-wide, 512-Mbit)
512MB DIMMs (64-bit-wide, 512-Mbit)
1GB DIMMs (64-bit-wide, 512-Mbit or 1-Gbit)
2GB DIMMs (64-bit-wide, 1-Gbit)
ECC memory available in configurations with 1GB or more (build-to-order option)
See =D, :D

[melgross]

If a man makes it another can break it , this is fact. There are ways to fool software to believe you are running it's certified hardware. all of a sudden because it's made by apple it won't be hacked, cracked , and distributed all over the web. News Flash buddy I can download Tiger 10.4.3 right now for mac or PC and both will work just as good as your copy. You continue to believe the crap Jobs feeds you. and i will be here to gloat this time next year.

Guys like you are very funny!

You know so little it's a real laugh. I'm sure you're a real expert.:D

Apple's initial security wasn't that strong. There wasn't any question about that.The developers have already said that the newer version is much more so. It doesn't come equipped with the security that Apple is patenting. Learn something about it before you shoot your mouth off.

I'm sure that there are others besides myself who are wondering why you're even here except to make a nuisance of yourself.

[AidenShaw]

Sorry you're wrong, they have 8 slots:
See =D, :D
Ummm, we were discussing a Dell workstation....

Hot avatar, though....

[contoursvt]

2x 3Ghz Xeon Nocona
ASUS NCCH-DL mainboard
4x 512mb RAM PC3200 CAS 3-6-3-3 1T
X800XT-PE AGP
Adaptec 3960D Dual U160 SCSI controller
3x Fujitsu 15k SCSI 36gig drives
2x Pioneer 16x DVD burners
Chenbro SR107 case, Antec 550w supply



32bit XP and 32bit cinebench
----------------------------

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester :

Processor :
MHz :
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System :

Graphics Card :
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 266 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 578 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 2.18

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 341 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1390 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2983 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 8.74

****************************************************






64bit XP and 64bit cinebench
----------------------------

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester :

Processor :
MHz :
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System :

Graphics Card :
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 326 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 680 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 2.08

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 372 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1405 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2677 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 7.19

****************************************************

[Garcia]

If a man makes it another can break it , this is fact. There are ways to fool software to believe you are running it's certified hardware. all of a sudden because it's made by apple it won't be hacked, cracked , and distributed all over the web. News Flash buddy I can download Tiger 10.4.3 right now for mac or PC and both will work just as good as your copy. You continue to believe the crap Jobs feeds you. and i will be here to gloat this time next year.

DONT FEED THE TROLL!!!!

Seriously, you need to wise up a little.

[slooksterPSV]

Ummm, we were discussing a Dell workstation....

Hot avatar, though....
Thanks and sorry, I just know Apple's better lol. I need to read more before posting on some.

I love this Avatar.

[jrlion2002]

Hi Guys:

Im new on the site and hate to post this on here, but seems like there are a lot of people on this category viewing right now. Having some serious issues with my mac..can anyone help..and if I can kindly ask, can you please reply back to the thread? Once,hopefully, I get it fixed, I will delete this post from here. Thanks guys/gals.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=161116

I sincerely apologize if this has been talked about here before, but in sort of dire need to get this mac fixed. I have a 733 / 1GB RAM Powermac G4 Quicksilver--completely clean.

When I first launched it, the internet was fine and was loading quick. As I did a sofware upgrade, I updated everything on the screen.

Now, my Safari or even Explorer, when I enter the url address, it takes soo long for the page to load. ie. when I type in google.com it takes close to 15-25 seconds for site to load up.

I have 10.3.9 by the way. Has anyone else experienced this? Any help would be so greatly appreciated.

[lha72]

The question has been asked, but I have not seen a reply. Is the Quad liquid cooled or air cooled? Also, what is the noise level? My 2002 quicksilver Dual 1GHz runs at 61db, which is much too loud.

[JCT]

The question has been asked, but I have not seen a reply. Is the Quad liquid cooled or air cooled? Also, what is the noise level? My 2002 quicksilver Dual 1GHz runs at 61db, which is much too loud.

The Quad is liquid-cooled as per my EDU rep (and confirmed by one of the lucky guys who already have one).

JT

[Prom1]

If a man makes it another can break it , this is fact. There are ways to fool software to believe you are running it's certified hardware. all of a sudden because it's made by apple it won't be hacked, cracked , and distributed all over the web. News Flash buddy I can download Tiger 10.4.3 right now for mac or PC and both will work just as good as your copy. You continue to believe the crap Jobs feeds you. and i will be here to gloat this time next year.

OK, then download it. I have a friend that has dowloaded his and has been running it smooth on his AMD 64Athlon for over a full week. He hasnt even booted window yet; even though he's sworn against a Mac. I'd like to see you download a Mac app or even go buy one and run it smoothly! Then come back, create a new thread & post. What you dont get is, most windows fanatics would download OS X on Intel run it for a week; just to navigate around, and then dump it. These group of people aren't hooking up a DV camcorder playing with iMovie nor even iDVD, nor even hooking up a Midi/USB Keyboard for playing with GarageBand. You'll write off the OS as useless because you havent fully utilized it with other apps. If windows is so good why do you want to download OS X for Intel in the first place? THe curiousity has a root; and its there for some reason. My friend did mention that he was amazed at how stable OS X for Intel is and was in fact "Its not half bad at all"; he's beginning to see why I want to goto Mac!

[ANIM8R]

The Quad is liquid-cooled as per my EDU rep (and confirmed by one of the lucky guys who already have one).

JT

I am not one of those lucky guys. I knew I should have jumped on that Order button sooner! :)

[jiggie2g]

OK, then download it. I have a friend that has dowloaded his and has been running it smooth on his AMD 64Athlon for over a full week. He hasnt even booted window yet; even though he's sworn against a Mac. I'd like to see you download a Mac app or even go buy one and run it smoothly! Then come back, create a new thread & post. What you dont get is, most windows fanatics would download OS X on Intel run it for a week; just to navigate around, and then dump it. These group of people aren't hooking up a DV camcorder playing with iMovie nor even iDVD, nor even hooking up a Midi/USB Keyboard for playing with GarageBand. You'll write off the OS as useless because you havent fully utilized it with other apps. If windows is so good why do you want to download OS X for Intel in the first place? THe curiousity has a root; and its there for some reason. My friend did mention that he was amazed at how stable OS X for Intel is and was in fact "Its not half bad at all"; he's beginning to see why I want to goto Mac!


People here don't what i was trying to say in my last few post. I really hate Mac snobs like Melgross , people like him justify the stereotype that Mac users are all a bunch of Aristocratic jerks with too much to blow on over priced computers.

Getting back to the Intel thing , People only download it now and keep it for a week because there are no drivers or programs available for it , unless u want to use that slowwwww Rosetta.crap. I specifically said in a year I would use OSX on my PC after things have seattled as far as programming is concerned.
Inerver said widows was great I don't care for windows, however my primary system is an Athlon X2 / nForce 4 Ultra based Win XP Pro machine. I also own an G4 iMac which served be well for 3yrs untill it was time to get an upgrade.

I did the Math and my PC was a much cheaper alternative and I'm not some freakin High School brat who will open up stupid chain letters and spam thus infect myself with viruses. I know how to run a clean and stable system. I bet 80% of the people who post here couldn't run a stable non mac OS system to save thier life Melgross included. While I Love OSX and can't wait for the day when it's ready to run full time on x86 . at this point and time it's not worth me spending over $2000 on hardware with no future. G5 is doomed , like it or not.

My PC is faster then any mac save for the QUAD (which is not even) , and It cost 60% of the price of a DC 2ghz PM.

[melgross]

People here don't what i was trying to say in my last few post. I really hate Mac snobs like Melgross , people like him justify the stereotype that Mac users are all a bunch of Aristocratic jerks with too much to blow on over priced computers.

Getting back to the Intel thing , People only download it now and keep it for a week because there are no drivers or programs available for it , unless u want to use that slowwwww Rosetta.crap. I specifically said in a year I would use OSX on my PC after things have seattled as far as programming is concerned.
Inerver said widows was great I don't care for windows, however my primary system is an Athlon X2 / nForce 4 Ultra based Win XP Pro machine. I also own an G4 iMac which served be well for 3yrs untill it was time to get an upgrade.

I did the Math and my PC was a much cheaper alternative and I'm not some freakin High School brat who will open up stupid chain letters and spam thus infect myself with viruses. I know how to run a clean and stable system. I bet 80% of the people who post here couldn't run a stable non mac OS system to save thier life Melgross included. While I Love OSX and can't wait for the day when it's ready to run full time on x86 . at this point and time it's not worth me spending over $2000 on hardware with no future. G5 is doomed , like it or not.

My PC is faster then any mac save for the QUAD (which is not even) , and It cost 60% of the price of a DC 2ghz PM.

This response shows up what I said.

Anyone who disagrees with a PC user (and supposed future switcher) is automatically called a snob or a fanatic when they present information they don't like.

We might as well say the same thing about you.

I probably know more about Windows that you do.

I was a partner in a commercial phot lab for over 27 years until my partner and I sold it early this year.

I bought dozens of computers over that time. Both Mac's and PC's.

I installed Novell on our main server used for accounting and front counter terminals. Windows machines aren't so difficult to setup or maintain. most PC users just don't know that, so they don't bother.

But, Mac's are even easier.

What I said earlier is the truth. If you had some interest, you would have thought that maybe you should find out something about it, as I said, instead of blabbing again. The PC community has been saying that this looks as though it won't make pirating OS X worthwhile. Why don't you check out what others are saying?

[jiggie2g]

This response shows up what I said.

Anyone who disagrees with a PC user (and supposed future switcher) is automatically called a snob or a fanatic when they present information they don't like.

We might as well say the same thing about you.

I probably know more about Windows that you do.

I was a partner in a commercial phot lab for over 27 years until my partner and I sold it early this year.

I bought dozens of computers over that time. Both Mac's and PC's.

I installed Novell on our main server used for accounting and front counter terminals. Windows machines aren't so difficult to setup or maintain. most PC users just don't know that, so they don't bother.

But, Mac's are even easier.

What I said earlier is the truth. If you had some interest, you would have thought that maybe you should find out something about it, as I said, instead of blabbing again. The PC community has been saying that this looks as though it won't make pirating OS X worthwhile. Why don't you check out what others are saying?


While it may be very difficult to crack , never say never . you should never enderestimate pirates. Not when there are a million young teens wanting to be the next DVD Jon who will do anything and waste endless hours, days , weeks, months to do this sort of thing just to make a name for themselves.

It's like some swiss bank goes around saying they have some new state of the art vault that cannot be openedm Then what happens .....some bankrobber gets blue prints , or info from the vault maker and spends the next 6 months trying to figure out how to break the vault. Just like hackers do with software. or how a car thief figure ways to trick the best car alarm.
remember those bank robbers in brazil.

remember when M$ started taking crap aboiut how the Xbox was unhackable and you could not run another OS on it. They were even so bold as to offer 100K to any hacker who could crack it , people all over bitched and moaned about how hard it was then few months later some kid uses an exploit in some game to hack the xbox and is now 100K richer. :D

Point is someone will do it no matter the level of difficulty just for the sake of saying they were the one do cracked it. once it's cracked and hacked the flood gates will open.

[contoursvt]

I think OSX is very secure but I think it has had holes here and there ( I found some info here http://secunia.com/product/96/ ) I think one of the main reasons that OSX is currently so secure is because the number of people using it is small compared to the windows world.

Heck I'm sure I can put my old OS/2 box outside of my network, wide open for the next 10 years and nobody will touch it. Doesnt mean its 100% secure, just means nobody is targeting it yet.

Just out of curiosity, if one was to take OSX and put it out in the open (no firewall and no antivirus) and make a challenge "hey see if you can hack this box or take it down" if it would be possible. I think it would go down....

The reason windows get such a bad rap is because there are so many users who dont know about viruses or spyware or even about using a router. They connect their computer straight to a DSL or cable modem and wonder why it went down. Again its hackers targeting the masses, and not really major security issues from one platform to another. I believe that because I set up a box for a friend who has no money. Nothing. I gave him a PII 400Mhz, 320mb RAM and my old XP Home (He offered to buy that but he's better saving his $$ for food). Anyway using nothing more than AVG as antivirus and XP's built in firewall in SP2, he's still up and running nearly 8 months later with no infections or problems. He has no router/firewall device. It connects stragiht to the net. The only thing I did to make his life easier was make a script that dumps his temp files in his profile and the windows folder upon startup.

Anyway I think with a little bit of knowledge and caution, nothing is wrong with XP's security.

[contoursvt]

PS.... I know you guys were talking about OSX's security regarding running on other platforms but I also wanted to add the actual OS security as an issue because everyone is always ready to jump on Microsoft....

[melgross]

While it may be very difficult to crack , never say never . you should never enderestimate pirates. Not when there are a million young teens wanting to be the next DVD Jon who will do anything and waste endless hours, days , weeks, months to do this sort of thing just to make a name for themselves.

It's like some swiss bank goes around saying they have some new state of the art vault that cannot be openedm Then what happens .....some bankrobber gets blue prints , or info from the vault maker and spends the next 6 months trying to figure out how to break the vault. Just like hackers do with software. or how a car thief figure ways to trick the best car alarm.
remember those bank robbers in brazil.

remember when M$ started taking crap aboiut how the Xbox was unhackable and you could not run another OS on it. They were even so bold as to offer 100K to any hacker who could crack it , people all over bitched and moaned about how hard it was then few months later some kid uses an exploit in some game to hack the xbox and is now 100K richer. :D

Point is someone will do it no matter the level of difficulty just for the sake of saying they were the one do cracked it. once it's cracked and hacked the flood gates will open.

There is something that has to be understood about security. Guys like Jon don't crack these systems because they are so easy to crack. They crack them because there is some easily correctable bug that they exploited.

In Jon's case, the only reason he was able to crack it was because somehow the key that is in the software for the use of the company was not stripped out before the disk was pressed. It's been agreed that if that key was not there, he couldn't have cracked it. Despite expectations from the posting community, it hasn't been cracked since.

The same is true for iTunes. It was cracked, fixed, cracked and fixed again. It has not been cracked since.

The new hi def disks are considered to be uncrackable in the sense that even if someone did manage to crack one, it would only work for that offering, nothing else.

Apple's patent is based on a well known cryptographic method of code substitution, among other things. The idea behind it is that the OS will be very hard to crack, but that even if it is, it won't be possible to run programs over it. It isn't a matter of some pimply kid sitting up late nights. Combined with the chip in every machine the OS will not be complete on non Mac machines. The way this is done ensures that the code needed can't be substituted for.

The problem people have with understanding security is that they mistake security systems that are added after the fact, and security systems that are built-in. When a system is built around the security functions, and when those functions also depend upon and external piece of hardware to be present, it's almost impossible to crack them.

Lest you jump on the "almost", that means that the amount of time, money, and sophistication needed to do so would be prohibitive.

[melgross]

I think OSX is very secure but I think it has had holes here and there ( I found some info here http://secunia.com/product/96/ ) I think one of the main reasons that OSX is currently so secure is because the number of people using it is small compared to the windows world.

Heck I'm sure I can put my old OS/2 box outside of my network, wide open for the next 10 years and nobody will touch it. Doesnt mean its 100% secure, just means nobody is targeting it yet.

Just out of curiosity, if one was to take OSX and put it out in the open (no firewall and no antivirus) and make a challenge "hey see if you can hack this box or take it down" if it would be possible. I think it would go down....

The reason windows get such a bad rap is because there are so many users who dont know about viruses or spyware or even about using a router. They connect their computer straight to a DSL or cable modem and wonder why it went down. Again its hackers targeting the masses, and not really major security issues from one platform to another. I believe that because I set up a box for a friend who has no money. Nothing. I gave him a PII 400Mhz, 320mb RAM and my old XP Home (He offered to buy that but he's better saving his $$ for food). Anyway using nothing more than AVG as antivirus and XP's built in firewall in SP2, he's still up and running nearly 8 months later with no infections or problems. He has no router/firewall device. It connects stragiht to the net. The only thing I did to make his life easier was make a script that dumps his temp files in his profile and the windows folder upon startup.

Anyway I think with a little bit of knowledge and caution, nothing is wrong with XP's security.

We're not talking about that kind of security.

[jiggie2g]

I think OSX is very secure but I think it has had holes here and there ( I found some info here http://secunia.com/product/96/ ) I think one of the main reasons that OSX is currently so secure is because the number of people using it is small compared to the windows world.

Heck I'm sure I can put my old OS/2 box outside of my network, wide open for the next 10 years and nobody will touch it. Doesnt mean its 100% secure, just means nobody is targeting it yet.

Just out of curiosity, if one was to take OSX and put it out in the open (no firewall and no antivirus) and make a challenge "hey see if you can hack this box or take it down" if it would be possible. I think it would go down....

The reason windows get such a bad rap is because there are so many users who dont know about viruses or spyware or even about using a router. They connect their computer straight to a DSL or cable modem and wonder why it went down. Again its hackers targeting the masses, and not really major security issues from one platform to another. I believe that because I set up a box for a friend who has no money. Nothing. I gave him a PII 400Mhz, 320mb RAM and my old XP Home (He offered to buy that but he's better saving his $$ for food). Anyway using nothing more than AVG as antivirus and XP's built in firewall in SP2, he's still up and running nearly 8 months later with no infections or problems. He has no router/firewall device. It connects stragiht to the net. The only thing I did to make his life easier was make a script that dumps his temp files in his profile and the windows folder upon startup.

Anyway I think with a little bit of knowledge and caution, nothing is wrong with XP's security.



I agree stay out of Kazaa like programs and use mail filtering programs like thunderbird , don't open up spam. I do spyware scans about twice a week

AVG is free , lite , simple and by far the best overall value for anti-spyware. Norton is a greedy resource eating virus disguised as a maintenace program.

I have never gotten a virus in nearly a year since building my PC. I am on my 3rd and hopefully final revision of my PC this year. I don't plan to upgrade till mid 2007.

PC revisions:

Dec 2004:

Athlon XP-M 2400+(Barton)@2.3ghz
Corsair Value 512MB DDR3200
DFI nForce 2 Ultra Infinity w/Sound Storm
ATI Radeon 9600 128MB DDR
NEC ND-3500A
Samsing Floopy drive
Hitachi 250GB SATA HD
Thermaltake Tsunami case / TT Purepower 480w PSU /
TT Silent Boost CPU w/ Artic Silver 5 Thermal paste

April 2005:

AMD Athlon 64 3000+(Venice)@2.6ghz
Corsair Value 1GB(512x2) DDR3200
DFI Lanparty UT nForce 4 Ultra-D
Leadtek Geforce 6600GT 128MB GDDR3
NEC ND-3500A
Hitachi 80GB SATA 2 + 250Gb SATA
Antec Sonata case w/ 380W Antec PSU(24amp 12v rail)
Zalman CPNS 7700-cu Heatsink / AS5 paste

October 2005:

AMD Athlon X2 3800+(Manchester)@Dual 2.6ghz
OCZ Platinum EL rev.2 2GB (1GBx2) DDR3200
DFI Lanparty UT nForce 4 Ultra-D
eVGA Geforce 7800GT 256MB GDDR3
NEC ND-3550A
Hitachi 80GB SATA 2 + 250Gb SATA
Antec P-180 case w/3x 120mm fans / Antec TruePower 2.0 550w PSU
Thermalright XP-90 w/92mm Antec tri-cool fan / AS5 Paste
Zalman VF700-cu VGA Cooler w/ AS5 Paste

Next parts will be NEC-4550 DVD Burner , Dell 2405 FPW Monitor.

after all this I have never had a virus. lets see how safe OS X will be once that market share starts to swell.

[Chip NoVaMac]

The Quad is liquid-cooled as per my EDU rep (and confirmed by one of the lucky guys who already have one).

JT

Wonder why Apple on the info site are quiet about this?

[contoursvt]

when everyone is saying 'liquid cooled' is this referring to heatpipes or an actual reservoir, pump, heat exchanger...etc? If its heatpipes, then I think 'liquid cooled' makes it sound more than it really is. I mean heatpipes have been around for ever in laptops and things...

[Pie]

I don't know if any of you guys are familiar with ProTools 6.9.2 but here is a screen shot of a test i did earlier. It's 44.1 24bit with the buffer set to 1024. (that'll make sense to a PT user). I duped the same reverb over and over again over 9 tracks and pressed play. It held up fine.

Check out the screen shot here...

http://www.pietunes.net/reverb_test.gif

[Redpoetsociety]

Originally Posted by jiggie2g:

I have never gotten a virus in nearly a year since building my PC.

what's a virus? :D

[contoursvt]

Originally Posted by jiggie2g:

I have never gotten a virus in nearly a year since building my PC.

what's a virus? :D


Its one of those things that seem to unfortunatly affect the more popular platform :p

[melgross]

when everyone is saying 'liquid cooled' is this referring to heatpipes or an actual reservoir, pump, heat exchanger...etc? If its heatpipes, then I think 'liquid cooled' makes it sound more than it really is. I mean heatpipes have been around for ever in laptops and things...

You've never seen pictures of the cooling system?

The whole nine yards.

[heartsglory]

Could someone point me to some pics of the cooling system of the G5 PM?

[jiggie2g]

when everyone is saying 'liquid cooled' is this referring to heatpipes or an actual reservoir, pump, heat exchanger...etc? If its heatpipes, then I think 'liquid cooled' makes it sound more than it really is. I mean heatpipes have been around for ever in laptops and things...


I am curious avout this myself the thermalright XP-90 on my Athlon X2 has 4 liquid filled heat pipes that go from the copper base to the fins. It's very effective as it keeps my OC'd X2 at around 34c Idle and about 42c Full Load. I think a very good heat pipe solution is good enough for the G5. Then again I think the G5 runs somewhat hotter then the Athlon 64 / X2 / FX / Opteron series. I know my X2 3800+ consumes 89 watts. The 4800+ is about 110 watts.

[heartsglory]

The laptop in my sig sucks about 61-70 W power (depending on the power saver setting). IT can get pretty warm and I know that no one in their right mind would put a liquid cooling system in a laptop. That makes me wonder too about the cooling system on a G5. To me, it seems that the G5 can run VERY hot (cheap heating for a geek? ;) ) Again, I wonder....

[melgross]

Could someone point me to some pics of the cooling system of the G5 PM?

http://www.detnews.com/2004/technology/0409/27/c04-284528.htm

http://www.pcinpact.com/actu/news/Photos_du_systeme_Watercooling_du_G5.htm

[jiggie2g]

http://www.detnews.com/2004/technology/0409/27/c04-284528.htm

http://www.pcinpact.com/actu/news/Photos_du_systeme_Watercooling_du_G5.htm


:eek: WOW.......PWETTY....lol

Seriously this is very creative , Apple has by far the best combination of Power , Cooling and Quietness.

I think the Antec P-180 may come in at a close 2nd to the G5 case.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16811129154

This is the Full review from SilentPCreview.com

http://www.silentpcreview.com/article254-page1.html

http://www.silentpcreview.com/article255-page1.html

as far as Heatpipes are concerned this is what i use

http://www.silentpcreview.com/article194-page1.html

wanna cool/quiet down that Video Card , take a look at this.

http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/zalman_vf700/index.shtml

I have all these components and i hand say my PC is every bit as quiet as any G5.

[melgross]

:eek: WOW.......PWETTY....lol

Seriously this is very creative , Apple has by far the best combination of Power , Cooling and Quietness.

I think the Antec P-180 may come in at a close 2nd to the G5 case.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16811129154

This is the Full review from SilentPCreview.com

http://www.silentpcreview.com/article254-page1.html

http://www.silentpcreview.com/article255-page1.html

Actually, if you want to get equivalent cooling and quietness in a high end cpu PC, you have to do what more PC'rs are doing all the time. Add a fridge yourself.

This is one of the latest.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1881206,00.asp

[contoursvt]

Hmm I've never been a big fan of watercooling because i'm always paranoid about the pump failing. I cant imagine the dualcore G5's producing much more heat than my prescott based xeons (3Ghz ones). My dual xeons are being cooled by coolermaster heatpipes passively. Two 120mm fans behind the hard drives push air forward and one 120mm fan right behind the coolers help push some of that out (as well as the PSU fan). Generally its all quiet until a threshold temp I set gets triggered, then it ramps up the fan speeds. This way unless multiple fans fail at the same time, there really is no issue.

http://powerthings.com/pics/coolers.jpg
http://powerthings.com/pics/side.jpg

Now I'm sure that the pumps can be reliable as I do have an aquarium and knock on wood, the filters have been running for ever (Eheim's) but you never know....

[melgross]

Hmm I've never been a big fan of watercooling because i'm always paranoid about the pump failing. I cant imagine the dualcore G5's producing much more heat than my prescott based xeons (3Ghz ones). My dual xeons are being cooled by coolermaster heatpipes passively. Two 120mm fans behind the hard drives push air forward and one 120mm fan right behind the coolers help push some of that out (as well as the PSU fan). Generally its all quiet until a threshold temp I set gets triggered, then it ramps up the fan speeds. This way unless multiple fans fail at the same time, there really is no issue.

http://powerthings.com/pics/coolers.jpg
http://powerthings.com/pics/side.jpg

Now I'm sure that the pumps can be reliable as I do have an aquarium and knock on wood, the filters have been running for ever (Eheim's) but you never know....

Water cooling is not exactly a new technology. So far there have been no reports of any of these failing, or leaking.

In my lab, we had water cooling systems on our film processors that ran for over 15 years, until we got new equipment. These were big units, pushing over 10 gallons a minute through the radiators. Other things failed over the years, but not those.

These work under very little pressure.

By the way, when I was a partner in a pro and hi end audio company, until we sold it over 20 years ago, I was the first one to design a high power amp (for racetrack sound systems) that used heatpipes.

[contoursvt]

I know logically all should be fine and I even know that pumps and motors can be very reliable. Heck my car still has the stock fuel pump at 235,000 km (knock wood again). It should not even worry me because people dont keep computers that long (except servers maybe) but for what ever reason, I'd feel more comfortable with large air cooled coolers.

PS. since you were talking about audio systems and cooling, I will add that my old power amp (picked it up used) is really doing a good job of warming up this side of the basement. Normally I'd be kind of cold but its a few degrees warmer on this side of the basement. The amp is an old 50wpc class A threshold amp. Sucker puts out some heat :) My temperature probe says the amps heatsinks are around 116F. I love the warmth - sound and room warming :)

http://powerthings.com/pics/stereo1024.jpg

[melgross]

I know logically all should be fine and I even know that pumps and motors can be very reliable. Heck my car still has the stock fuel pump at 235,000 km (knock wood again). It should not even worry me because people dont keep computers that long (except servers maybe) but for what ever reason, I'd feel more comfortable with large air cooled coolers.

PS. since you were talking about audio systems and cooling, I will add that my old power amp (picked it up used) is really doing a good job of warming up this side of the basement. Normally I'd be kind of cold but its a few degrees warmer on this side of the basement. The amp is an old 50wpc class A threshold amp. Sucker puts out some heat :) My temperature probe says the amps heatsinks are around 116F. I love the warmth - sound and room warming :)

http://powerthings.com/pics/stereo1024.jpg

I try not to worry about what I can't control. Besides, this is a pretty potent cooling system. Heat pipes can't come close to a pumped liquid system. while they are very good, they have a much higher thermal resistence.

Threshold made pretty good products. A lot of them are still around. At one of my audio clubs recently, we listened to one of their old pre-amps. It still sounded pretty good.

But 50 watts class A. At least it isn't tubes!

[JCT]

AFAIK, Apple has had pretty good luck with the cooling systems in the Dual 2.5 and 2.7 models. My guess is that that if there had been any serious mishaps due to the liquid cooling we would have heard about it. Imagine the pics all over one of these threads... ;) My Dual 2.5 G5 has been running largely 24/7 for the past year - no problems.

The more recent DIY cooling kits for PCs are leaps and bounds ahead of where they used to be. I investigated putting one in my son's gaming machine about 18 months ago and balked. We're about to re-visit that decision and things appear much better.

And we have some really old equipment in my lab that is water-cooled... really old.

JT

[Platform]

http://www.detnews.com/2004/technology/0409/27/c04-284528.htm

http://www.pcinpact.com/actu/news/Photos_du_systeme_Watercooling_du_G5.htm

Thats the old dual 2.5 not the quad....;)

Whatr about the quad pics:confused:

[JCT]

Thats the old dual 2.5 not the quad....;)

Whatr about the quad pics:confused:

Pics from one of the first guy to get one: http://homepage.mac.com/jasonhh/PhotoAlbum2.html

Not much room left in that box!

JT

[Platform]

Pics from one of the first guy to get one: http://homepage.mac.com/jasonhh/PhotoAlbum2.html

Not much room left in that box!

JT

Sorry to be rude, but I can see that at apple.com......covers off, etc.;)

[JCT]

Sorry to be rude, but I can see that at apple.com......covers off, etc.;)

Usually if you make your question more explicit you will get "better" or more detailed answers.

Presumably there are not enough of these machines in the wild for anyone to have completely dismantled the cooling system or to have uncovered the service manual.

JT

[seashellz]

well, hey! just for fun I ran the Horse test on my June, 2003 1Ghz eMac ("Snow") w/1Gb of Ram and 60 Gb HD , 10.4.3, + fully updated, and the HD-about 25% full of stuff. Using Photoshop 7.01-

An AMAZING 4 minutes, 50 Seconds!:eek:

[sephirot]

Would be interesting to know if only the quad is water cooled or the other Dual core machines too?

Something else I wonder. The liquid in the cooling system is described as 80% water, the rest is ethanol, antibacterial fluids etc. In the tech specs one can read for all the PowerPC G5 systems using temperatures between 10°C and up, but storeage temperatures between -40°C and up? Can the liquid cooling system be damaged at minus temperatures?

regards
Andy

[Platform]

Usually if you make your question more explicit you will get "better" or more detailed answers.

Presumably there are not enough of these machines in the wild for anyone to have completely dismantled the cooling system or to have uncovered the service manual.

JT

I did, they talked about the cooling system;)

[slooksterPSV]

Pics from one of the first guy to get one: http://homepage.mac.com/jasonhh/PhotoAlbum2.html

Not much room left in that box!

JT
I think that is awesome, especially the CPU usage. None of them, ever, reached the top line like the others did.

[JCT]

I think that is awesome, especially the CPU usage. None of them, ever, reached the top line like the others did.

LOL, I thought the same thing! Good thing my current extra storage is all external... now all I need is a PCIe SATA card and I am set!

Dec 26th seems like a long way away...

JT

[vassillios]

remember folks Xbench is a single thread test. only one core was used in this test.

so let me get this straight...1 core of a DC 2.5 ghz chip, in the Quad, can beat out a 1 core 2.7 ghz chip? something's not right there.

[allpar]

Computers do provide heating, but it's not cheap ... and yes, I do run my computers in the winter as heaters! (Only to supplement steam.) Electric heat is probably the most expensive form of heat you can find. And let's not think about summertime... If Intel can provide Motorola-style efficiency, I'm all for it. (There was a time when a Mac would provide the same power as a PC using less than half the power!)

[melgross]

so let me get this straight...1 core of a DC 2.5 ghz chip, in the Quad, can beat out a 1 core 2.7 ghz chip? something's not right there.

One of the biggest problems with the G5 is that it has the smallest L2 cache of all its competitors.

512KB cache has been considered to be far too small to let the core perform up to its potential.

I'm sure that everyone here has heard, over and over, about the PM's memory latency problems. This is what a cache is designed to help overcome.

The 1MB cache per core in the new chips gives the core a boost in speed because it's not pounding that high latency memory bus as often. There is around 6% speed boost because of it.

The G5 could greatly benefit from a 2MB L2 cache. With that, it could add another 10% performance to the 6% it just gained. IBM's concerns about die size, costs, and yield have not made Apple happy. One of the reasons they are leaving.

Right now, the G5 is close to the Xeons, but still noticeably behind the Opterons. Whomever it was that posted the other day and had it the other way around is WAY too optimistic.

With 2MB cache, the G5 would beat the Xeon, and would be close to the Opteron. But if IBM really wanted to see the G5 fly past, it would need to reinstall the L3 controller it removed from the POWER when it made these. A 4MB L3 cache would add another 15-20% to the 16% added by a 2MB L2.

Sigh, but it will never happen.

[vassillios]

One of the biggest problems with the G5 is that it has the smallest L2 cache of all its competitors.

512KB cache has been considered to be far too small to let the core perform up to its potential.

I'm sure that everyone here has heard, over and over, about the PM's memory latency problems. This is what a cache is designed to help overcome.

The 1MB cache per core in the new chips gives the core a boost in speed because it's not pounding that high latency memory bus as often. There is around 6% speed boost because of it.

The G5 could greatly benefit from a 2MB L2 cache. With that, it could add another 10% performance to the 6% it just gained. IBM's concerns about die size, costs, and yield have not made Apple happy. One of the reasons they are leaving.

Right now, the G5 is close to the Xeons, but still noticeably behind the Opterons. Whomever it was that posted the other day and had it the other way around is WAY too optimistic.

With 2MB cache, the G5 would beat the Xeon, and would be close to the Opteron. But if IBM really wanted to see the G5 fly past, it would need to reinstall the L3 controller it removed from the POWER when it made these. A 4MB L3 cache would add another 15-20% to the 16% added by a 2MB L2.

Sigh, but it will never happen.

it floors me that IBM crippled the G5. They truly could have made something great. oh well... my new DC 2.3 get's the job done just fine. i basically use my mac for music production (using Logic), surfing and stuff like that. i know that logic would benefit from the quad since it's a multi-threaded application, but my projects don't require that much horsepower....or at least that's how i reason to myself for not spending the extra $$$$ on the quad...i used it for Logic.

i still need to get photoshop at some point (still using windows for now).

i only play 1 video game...Star Wars Battlefront and i haven't gotten that for Mac yet; i'm going to wait until Battlefront 2 comes out.

[Lord Blackadder]

With 2MB cache, the G5 would beat the Xeon, and would be close to the Opteron. But if IBM really wanted to see the G5 fly past, it would need to reinstall the L3 controller it removed from the POWER when it made these. A 4MB L3 cache would add another 15-20% to the 16% added by a 2MB L2.

Sigh, but it will never happen.

That high-speed memory costs $$$$. I imagine that the unit cost would rise to unacceptable levels if they added 1MB more cache...especially for the Quad.

[melgross]

That high-speed memory costs $$$$. I imagine that the unit cost would rise to unacceptable levels if they added 1MB more cache...especially for the Quad.

It does cost more. But the cost to Apple of the new dual core chips WITH double the L2 cache is LESS that the cost of two single core chips with 512KB L2 cache each. The cost of both dual core chips, therefore, is less than the cost of the two chips that preceeded them.

That last sentence is not what I meant. What I did mean is that the Two dual core chips costs Apple less that if they had purchased four chips to replace the two that preceeded the Quad. Sorry.

[jhu]

it floors me that IBM crippled the G5. They truly could have made something great. oh well... my new DC 2.3 get's the job done just fine. i basically use my mac for music production (using Logic), surfing and stuff like that. i know that logic would benefit from the quad since it's a multi-threaded application, but my projects don't require that much horsepower....or at least that's how i reason to myself for not spending the extra $$$$ on the quad...i used it for Logic.

and encroach on the performance of their power4/5 chips? that's probably not a good idea either.

[melgross]

and encroach on the performance of their power4/5 chips? that's probably not a good idea either.

The POWER 4 is already gone, no problem there. The 5 is also gone, replaced with the 5+.

Before too long, that will be replaced with the 6, which is much more powerful.

The 970 is based on the Power 4.

I don't think that IBM has to worry about encroachment.

[xoct]

We just got our Quad today to accompany our 2.7 Dual. Both have the same 4.5GB RAM and the same standard graphics card. In the latest update of FCP 5, we took a 1080i HD shot and applied a Gaussian Blur. The render time on the Quad was 50% faster than the 2.7 Dual. I can't remember how long the clip was, but it took about three minutes for the Quad, and about six minutes for the 2.7 Dual. We were all very pleased. The next big test I'd like to do is to take a QT movie and compress it as an H.264 because that's so darn slow to do on the 2.7 Dual.

[melgross]

We just got our Quad today to accompany our 2.7 Dual. Both have the same 4.5GB RAM and the same standard graphics card. In the latest update of FCP 5, we took a 1080i HD shot and applied a Gaussian Blur. The render time on the Quad was 50% faster than the 2.7 Dual. I can't remember how long the clip was, but it took about three minutes for the Quad, and about six minutes for the 2.7 Dual. We were all very pleased. The next big test I'd like to do is to take a QT movie and compress it as an H.264 because that's so darn slow to do on the 2.7 Dual.

Can you try an iTunes rip? Those that I've seen show it to have the same speed on a Quad as on a dual cpu. I'm wondering, if that's true, if iTunes is properly threaded, or if it only has two threads to work with.

Thanks, in advance.

[groovebuster]

It actually is single-threaded!

iTunes relies completely on the QuickTime engine and QT can handle only one processor core at a time... So no gain by a multi-processor machine at all. 1 core or 100 cores... no difference.

I wonder when Apple will sort that out finally...

BTW... an application that truly is designed for multi-threading scales automatically with the number of available processors.

groovebuster

Edit: Do the test yourself... switch off one of the processors and rip the same song in iTunes again. Should take almost exactly the same time...

[anthonylambert]

I recieved my QUAD yesterday... I noticed that the bus speed reported by XBench says only 1gz not 1.25gz as per the specs. The earlier benchmarks reported here say the same.... hey what's going on???

Xbench Results:
Results 151.86
System Info
Xbench Version 1.2
System Version 10.4.2 (8E90)
Physical RAM 3072 MB
Model PowerMac11,2
Processor PowerPC G5x4 @ 2.50 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 1024K @ 2.50 GHz
Bus Frequency 1 GHz
Drive Type WDC WD2500JS-41MVB1
CPU Test 125.82
GCD Loop 125.52 6.62 Mops/sec

I'm running the standard apple supplied memory...

Tony

[anthonylambert]

Anyone got any recomendations for free/shareware apps that will really graphically show off my lovely new Quad machine?

I saw a program which used to model the sea or waves anyway in realtime in an apple show a year or two back any idea what it was? might of been a screen saver.

Tony

[BakedBeans]

I recieved my QUAD yesterday... I noticed that the bus speed reported by XBench says only 1gz not 1.25gz as per the specs. The earlier benchmarks reported here say the same.... hey what's going on???

Xbench Results:
Results 151.86
System Info
Xbench Version 1.2
System Version 10.4.2 (8E90)
Physical RAM 3072 MB
Model PowerMac11,2
Processor PowerPC G5x4 @ 2.50 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 1024K @ 2.50 GHz
Bus Frequency 1 GHz
Drive Type WDC WD2500JS-41MVB1
CPU Test 125.82
GCD Loop 125.52 6.62 Mops/sec

I'm running the standard apple supplied memory...

Tony

The answer?

xbench sucks!

[RaVeNChAoS]

Using Photoshop CS or CS2 (or PS 7)
==================================================
1.) Download the test image from http://www.quicklance.com/test.jpg
2.) Save it to the computer and then open it up in Photoshop
3.) From there please apply a ‘radial blur’ with the settings at:
Amount = 100
Blur Method = Spin
Quality = Best
Using a stop watch / ps timer see how long it takes to apply this filter
I just want to see what these new cpu’s can really do.

Results:
iMac G5 1.8GHz, 1GB - 2:00
Athlon XP3200+, 1GB - 2:15
Athlon64 4000+, 1GB - 1:25
Dual 2.5 Running 10.4.2 with 2.5 GB RAM 40 seconds
PowerMac Dual 2.7 Dell 2405 FPW, 2.5 gigs of ram, Radeon 9650 42 seconds
Dual Core 2.0 GHz G5 with 2.5GB ram Photoshop CS2 47.4 seconds

Quad 2.5GHz G5 2.5GB RAM 10.4.3 22 seconds !!!!! It's an amazing huh??!!!

Just got my new G5 Quad, couldn't afford ram yet lol so here are the results.
Photoshop test as stated above:
Quad 2.5GHz G5 | 512mb RAM | Nvidia 6600 | OS 10.4.3 19.7 seconds (I don't know why yours took longer with more ram.
However so far the cinebench results kind of suck imo. I have kept a database of results for cinebench on the following systems I have tested before.

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : RaVeN

Processor : quad g5
MHz : 2.5
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : 10.4.3

Graphics Card : 6600 nvidia
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 354 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 903 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 2.55

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 351 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1045 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1850 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.28

****************************************************

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : RaVeN

Processor : G5
MHz : 2.5 DP
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.3.8

Graphics Card : 9600
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 356 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 635 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.78

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 336 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 937 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1641 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.89

****************************************************

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : RaVeN

Processor : Dual Opteron 264
MHz : 2ghz
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : xp pro sp1

Graphics Card : ati 9600
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 272 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 507 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.86

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 304 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1399 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2754 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 9.06

****************************************************

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : RaVeN

Processor : p4
MHz : 3.2
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : xppro

Graphics Card : geforce5200
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 280 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 334 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.19

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 359 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1183 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1134 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 3.29

****************************************************

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : RaVeN

Processor : G4 MDD 2gb
MHz : 1.25 DP
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.2

Graphics Card : 9800 pro
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 120 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 218 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.82

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 150 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 381 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 712 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 4.73

****************************************************

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : RaVeN

Processor : G4
MHz : 1 ghz dp
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.3.8

Graphics Card : Geforce 4 MX
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 96 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 172 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.80

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 117 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 334 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 172 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 2.85

****************************************************

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : RaVeN

Processor : mac mini 256mb ram
MHz : 1.25
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : 10.38

Graphics Card : ati 32mb
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 113 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 141 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 345 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 439 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 3.11

****************************************************

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : RaVeN

Processor : imac G4 15" 256mb ram
MHz : 800
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : 10.3.9

Graphics Card : nvidia 32mb
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 70 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 87 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 215 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 103 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 2.47

****************************************************

[Multimedia]

We just got our Quad today to accompany our 2.7 Dual. Both have the same 4.5GB RAM and the same standard graphics card. In the latest update of FCP 5, we took a 1080i HD shot and applied a Gaussian Blur. The render time on the Quad was 50% faster than the 2.7 Dual. I can't remember how long the clip was, but it took about three minutes for the Quad, and about six minutes for the 2.7 Dual. We were all very pleased. The next big test I'd like to do is to take a QT movie and compress it as an H.264 because that's so darn slow to do on the 2.7 Dual.
Twice as fast is 100% faster not 50% faster. Started using EyeTV's new iPod encoding scheme and it takes FOREVER to do with a dual 2 or dual 2.5. I am sure the Quad will still be too slow. We need so much more power to efficiently compress video it is not funny.

[maestro55]

I have never personally cared about benchmark tests, anyhow. People want to get the fastest set-ups, but do everyday users really realize the difference? I mean unless you use the latest versions of very bulky software, you won't realize a difference. Seeing the difference in points then, means nothing.

[Harry322]

Just got the email that my Quad (with the 7800) is shipping! i'll get it today. Anyone else have a quad with the 7800 yet? I wonder how different the benchmarks are from the 6600?

[ottonian]

Wow...

When did you order?

I'd love to get mine before the end of the year BUT...

I was one of the souls who bought a Dual 1.42 5 months before the G5's were released...ouch [keep head down, move forward...]

Could this be a blessing in disguise if they make an additional upgrade to the Quad at the Macworld expo and I can cancel and reorder?

[Harry322]

I ordered about a month ago, which is odd. I thought I'd get mine a few weeks after Christmas, but it should be here any minute!

[rickvanr]

I ordered about a month ago, which is odd. I thought I'd get mine a few weeks after Christmas, but it should be here any minute!

Congrats! I know how excited I was waiting for my dual 2.7 to come. It'd be even grander if had happened close to December.

[jbaugh]

Here are my Cinebench 2003 results with my quad G5. They are considerably worse than any other benchmarks I've seen posted for the quad! Especially worrisome are the low scores for both single and multiple CPU rendering. What does this mean. Do I have defective CPUs? Any suggestions?
John

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Jb

Processor : Quad G5
MHz : 2.5 GHz
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : OS 10.4.3

Graphics Card : GeForce 6600
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 273 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 835 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 3.06

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 345 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 918 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1827 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.30

****************************************************

[groovebuster]

Congrats! I know how excited I was waiting for my dual 2.7 to come. It'd be even grander if had happened close to December.

I am also really excited...
:)

I ordered my Quad sunday evening at a little dealer here in Germany who offered the machine with an extra 1GB of RAM for free and it will ship today with UPS.

This is premature X-mas for me!!!! :) :) :) :) :) :p

groovebuster

[sauria]

Try reinstalling the app

Here are my Cinebench 2003 results with my quad G5. They are considerably worse than any other benchmarks I've seen posted for the quad! Especially worrisome are the low scores for both single and multiple CPU rendering. What does this mean. Do I have defective CPUs? Any suggestions?
John

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Jb

Processor : Quad G5
MHz : 2.5 GHz
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : OS 10.4.3

Graphics Card : GeForce 6600
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 273 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 835 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 3.06

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 345 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 918 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1827 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 5.30

****************************************************

[jbaugh]

Try reinstalling the app

I'm very embarrassed to admit it, but I goofed. The Cinebench results I obtained were run on the non-G5 optimized version of Cinebench 2003. I didn't even know there was a G5 optimized version until it was pointed out to me by Mike at xlr8yourmac.com.

Now my Cinebench 2003 results are every bit as good as others have posted for their quad G5s.
John

[sauria]

I'm very embarrassed to admit it, but I goofed. The Cinebench results I obtained were run on the non-G5 optimized version of Cinebench 2003. I didn't even know there was a G5 optimized version until it was pointed out to me by Mike at xlr8yourmac.com.

Now my Cinebench 2003 results are every bit as good as others have posted for their quad G5s.
John

Good news! You love it now?

[jbaugh]

Good news! You love it now?

To say I love it is an understatement.

For some bizarre reason the computer actually was a bit lethargic on many common tasks. Thus it was easy for me to believe the suboptimal Cinebench scores. It took 3- 4 seconds to open Mail, while opening Mail on the identically configured quad G5 at the Apple Store is virtually instantaneous. Similarly, the quad G5 at the Apple Store could open Microsoft Word in less than 2 seconds while my computer took 5 seconds or longer to do this.

I kept getting alert messages from the Belkin UPS software (Bulldog Plus) about exceeding the maximum load. I changed to a higher rated UPS device and deleted the Belkin software. Immediately, my computer is a speed demon. I didn't do anything else differently and I can only assume that the lower capacity UPS device and/or the Belkin software was causing a bottleneck somewhere. Now Mail opens essentially instantaneously. MSWord bounces once. By the time the icon in the Dock has completed its single bounce and returned to baseline, MSWord is open and ready to go.

So, yes, I'm one happy camper. The speed up in working with Final Cut Pro is phenomenal. I can have a 45 minute FCP video ready (from export via Compressor) for DVDSP now in 45 minutes when it took me 8- 12 hrs. to do this on my Titanium PB 800 MHz.
John

[sauria]

Perhaps the finder is not optimized for 4 CPUS?

To say I love it is an understatement.

For some bizarre reason the computer actually was a bit lethargic on many common tasks. Thus it was easy for me to believe the suboptimal Cinebench scores. It took 3- 4 seconds to open Mail, while opening Mail on the identically configured quad G5 at the Apple Store is virtually instantaneous. Similarly, the quad G5 at the Apple Store could open Microsoft Word in less than 2 seconds while my computer took 5 seconds or longer to do this.

I kept getting alert messages from the Belkin UPS software (Bulldog Plus) about exceeding the maximum load. I changed to a higher rated UPS device and deleted the Belkin software. Immediately, my computer is a speed demon. I didn't do anything else differently and I can only assume that the lower capacity UPS device and/or the Belkin software was causing a bottleneck somewhere. Now Mail opens essentially instantaneously. MSWord bounces once. By the time the icon in the Dock has completed its single bounce and returned to baseline, MSWord is open and ready to go.

So, yes, I'm one happy camper. The speed up in working with Final Cut Pro is phenomenal. I can have a 45 minute FCP video ready (from export via Compressor) for DVDSP now in 45 minutes when it took me 8- 12 hrs. to do this on my Titanium PB 800 MHz.
John

[longofest]

To say I love it is an understatement.

For some bizarre reason the computer actually was a bit lethargic on many common tasks. Thus it was easy for me to believe the suboptimal Cinebench scores. It took 3- 4 seconds to open Mail, while opening Mail on the identically configured quad G5 at the Apple Store is virtually instantaneous. Similarly, the quad G5 at the Apple Store could open Microsoft Word in less than 2 seconds while my computer took 5 seconds or longer to do this.

I kept getting alert messages from the Belkin UPS software (Bulldog Plus) about exceeding the maximum load. I changed to a higher rated UPS device and deleted the Belkin software. Immediately, my computer is a speed demon. I didn't do anything else differently and I can only assume that the lower capacity UPS device and/or the Belkin software was causing a bottleneck somewhere. Now Mail opens essentially instantaneously. MSWord bounces once. By the time the icon in the Dock has completed its single bounce and returned to baseline, MSWord is open and ready to go.

So, yes, I'm one happy camper. The speed up in working with Final Cut Pro is phenomenal. I can have a 45 minute FCP video ready (from export via Compressor) for DVDSP now in 45 minutes when it took me 8- 12 hrs. to do this on my Titanium PB 800 MHz.
John

Hmm... It really could have been either that slowed down your quad. Since OS 10 has built-in software for UPS management, I'd definitely suggest just going with that to reduce unwanted lag. It could have been the software.

However, having an under-rated UPS could have also been the culprit. If it wasn't conditioning the power correctly, its possible your CPU's weren't getting the propper voltage, which would have slowed them down. It's a stretch, but possible.

What size UPS did you have to end up going with? My quad just shipped. I use an APC Back-UPS 800 for my Dual-1Ghz Quicksilver, but if the rumors were true about this thing having over 1000 watt power supply, I think I might need an even bigger one.

[longofest]

Perhaps the finder is not optimized for 4 CPUS?

Apple SAYS the finder is SMP-aware, but after using the finder since OS 10.0.x, I can say without a doubt that Apple is smoking dope. I get WAY too many spinning beach-balls to call the finder SMP-aware.

[jbaugh]

What size UPS did you have to end up going with? My quad just shipped. I use an APC Back-UPS 800 for my Dual-1Ghz Quicksilver, but if the rumors were true about this thing having over 1000 watt power supply, I think I might need an even bigger one.

I was temporarily using my daughter's Belkin UPS ( I don't know the model number but it has "750 VA" written on it). I'm now using what looks like the same basic model except that it is "900 VA".

Like you, I am wondering if I am cutting it close. On the back of the box the unit came it are some recommendations for "Which Belkin Battery Backup is right for you". For someone like me with a multi-cpu Mac G5 and a 21 inch monitor it recommends their "Enterprise" level backup systems. On the front of the box is a label that says, "For high-end computers and office equipment". No mention of this being an Enterprise level device though.

Maybe someone here on this forum who is more knowledgeable about power requirements can help us on this one. But for now I am connecting only my G5, 21 inch cinema display and two external Firewire HDs to the UPS.
John

[contoursvt]

Well I'm using an APC brand backups 1000va like this one http://www.famoustelephone.com/promotions/images/apc_rs.jpg which is something I picked up from staples for like $179 on sale a while back.

The box its on is a dual xeon 3ghz, 3 scsi drives, x800xt video, 2gig ram, two optical drives. Monitor is a dell 21" trinitron but I dont run the monitor off the UPS, well not off the battery anyway, just on surge. I've set the UPS to shut the computer down when it gets down to 5 mins remaining.

So far the computer seems to run the UPS at around 40% load when I'm doing light stuff and about 65% load under extreme stress. I think its more than enough. If I did add a monitor to that, it would probably push it a bit too close to the edge for my liking...

[JRM PowerPod]

I did the photoshop test as well it took 16secs compared to the PowerBook in my sig which takes 2:30.

I'm on my PB right now and dont have the exact results of theQuad, but from memory

Single Proc rendering : 350
Multiple : 1008
So multiplier is : 2.8

Shading 4d : Cant remember (will update)
Software :1137 (disappointing)
Hardware 2502

It's a beast of a machine
4GB, 1TB, 7800GT, Wireless and Bluetooth

Though i swear to god that the room it is in is about 5 degrees hotter than any other room after running it for a day

The radial blur test in photoshop blew me away, 16secs, my PowerBook takes frickin 150secs and even my brothers fully loaded Inspiron with 2Ghz Centrino, 2GB ram, 100gb 128mb graphics still takes 98secs

Also the G5 enclosure makes my cinema display look tiny

[npm]

Has anyone had a chance to run the Driver Heaven Photoshop test suite yet?

Instructions here: http://www.driverheaven.net/photoshop/
Mac download here: http://www.driverheaven.net/photoshop/dhpsbench2.zip
Results for comparison here (there's a few PowerMacs in there): http://www.driverheavendownloads.net/photoshop/results.php

Cheers, Joe

I am surprised no one has tried this yet (that I saw anyway...)

PHOTOSHOP CS
Quad 2.5, 6.5GB RAM, 7800 GT, WD Caviar

1: Texturiser Test (1)
5.3 seconds

2: CYMK Colour Conversion
1.1 seconds

3: RGB Colour Conversion
1.2 seconds

4: Dust and Scratches
1.8 seconds

5: Watercolour
24.0 seconds

6: Texturiser Test (2)
5.5 seconds

7: Stained Glass
8.3 seconds

8: Lighting Effects
2.8 seconds

9: Mosiac Tiles
31.3 seconds

10: Extrude
57.4 seconds

11: Smart Blur
57.8 seconds

12. Underpainting
36.6 seconds

Total time: 233.1 seconds

[Caesar_091]

Total time: 233.1 seconds

IMHO is really too much if these (http://www.driverheavendownloads.net/photoshop/results.php) results are true :eek:

[Photorun]

IMHO is really too much if these (http://www.driverheavendownloads.net/photoshop/results.php) results are true :eek:

No worries mate, after looking at that list it's quite clear quite a few people are posting erroneos scores, geeks tend to be braggers, braggers tend to be liars. The supposed fastest machine, er, "guy," "Da-Pwn," coming in at 6 seconds I mean, c'mon. The next fastest almost seemed like the first of the probable ones and his supposed user name is "Pimpsta," he's probably a fat, white, loser who's never kissed a girl, had a date, etc., at 128.

Looks like a forum of the figures don't lie, but the liars sure figure.

Some would make sense, a Xeon is fast, AMD chips, then near the top there's a guy with friggin' P4s putting up ridiculously suspicious figures there that there's just simply no way. Trust this site as much as you'd trust a used car salesman selling a 1972 Caddy with only 500 miles on the odometer that was "driven by an old lady, only on sunny days, when it was 72 degrees"

The quad G5 scores started appearing at 192 seconds on this highly suspect list, and that's probably about right for seconds, if there wasn't a bunch of questionable times there they'd be on the first page. My own two years old G5 2.0 came in at 263.

It should be noted that Adobe has dropped the ball somewhat on the programming of Photoshop for Mac and this would hurt some of the times here. What will be interesting is if certain other chips can be put into whatever the new PowerMac (or whatever they'll call it, maybe the MacMac if the Macbook is any indication) and can go toe to toe with some of these chips. If a Mac and a peecee get the same chip and the Mac is slower than Adobe's more and more craptacular coding for the Mac definitely is to be blamed because architecture-wise they'd be similar.

[Multimedia]

Just got the Quad to transcode HDTV recordings made with EyeTV2 to iPod campatible size. My old Dual 2.5 took 4x the length of the video to crush. This Quad does it in 2x the length of the video. I am not bragging. I am simply and happily reporting a FACT:

In the case of EyeTV2 broadcast HDTV recordings and real world QuickTime exporting experience, the BENCHMARK is that a Quad is fully 200% faster than the same speed 2.5 GHz Dual at crushing native HD broadcast video down to video iPod campatible mpeg4 - non-H.264, EyeTV2 "for iPod (recommended) 640 x 360 (198 KB/sec) preset.

[melgross]

Adobe hasn'r just fallen down on the Mac version.

I beta test PS, and can say that the biggest surprise was to find out that PS only recognises TWO cpu's, or cores!

Just two.

That's why the Quad can't achieve the scores it should.

Take about 40% off the best times for the Quad, and that's what we should be expecting from PS, if it DID use all four cores.

I'm told that they are working on this, but that we likely won't see it until the next release.

[npm]

Adobe hasn'r just fallen down on the Mac version.

I beta test PS, and can say that the biggest surprise was to find out that PS only recognises TWO cpu's, or cores!

Just two.

That's why the Quad can't achieve the scores it should.

Take about 40% off the best times for the Quad, and that's what we should be expecting from PS, if it DID use all four cores.

I'm told that they are working on this, but that we likely won't see it until the next release.

Some of the PS filters will use all four cores. For example, the spinning horse test which uses the radial blur takes 19 seconds and all fours pop to life. It is a beautiful thing to watch.

For tasks that only see two cores, there is still a benefit with the Quad system. The two core app (or process) can have 200% cpu because the system and other processes can use the left over cpu's to run. There isn't a lot of speed gained, but there is a lot of productivity gained. You can encode a DVD or crunch mp4 at 200% while working at 200% in FCP or PS!

I wish all apps were Quad enabled and am shocked that FCP is not, but there is a hint of silver lining with the productivity gains.

[cgc]

For comparison, my PowerBook (15" Alu) 1.25 G4 got a 102.80

Brian

Depends on what version of XBench you are using...the most recent version uses a different scale, so if you're comparing an old score to the new score it will be severly skewed.

[melgross]

Some of the PS filters will use all four cores. For example, the spinning horse test which uses the radial blur takes 19 seconds and all fours pop to life. It is a beautiful thing to watch.

For tasks that only see two cores, there is still a benefit with the Quad system. The two core app (or process) can have 200% cpu because the system and other processes can use the left over cpu's to run. There isn't a lot of speed gained, but there is a lot of productivity gained. You can encode a DVD or crunch mp4 at 200% while working at 200% in FCP or PS!

I wish all apps were Quad enabled and am shocked that FCP is not, but there is a hint of silver lining with the productivity gains.

Only a handful of filters work on four cores. Adobe is working on this.

We should see FCP working on four by the time the NAB show is on in April.

[contoursvt]

Figured I'll have a go at it with this driverheaven test as well as cinebench and other stuff. Box is a dual 3.0 Xeon Nocona with 2gig DDR400 ram and 3x 36gig scsi drives. Memory assignment was what ever photoshop CS2 sets - I believe its 50% of system ram. The OS is XP SP2.

===============Driverheaven PS test================================

1.3 - texturizer
3.2 - cmyk
3.8 - rgb
2.5 - dust and scratches
23.6 - water colour
2.0 - texturizer
9.1 - stained glass
4.4 - lighting effects
18.6 - mosaic tiles
53.3 - extrude
47.1 - smart blur
22.1 - underpainting

total - 191.0 seconds




==============32bit Cinebench test=====================================

CINEBENCH 2003 v1

Tester : Tino

Processor : Xeon
MHz : 3000
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : XPPRO

Graphics Card : X800XT
Resolution : 1280x960
Color Depth : 32


Rendering (Single CPU): 266 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 578 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 2.18

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 341 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1390 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2983 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 8.74




=================64bit Cinebench scores============================

CINEBENCH 2003 v1

Tester : Tino

Processor : Xeon
MHz : 3000
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : XP64

Graphics Card : X800XT
Resolution : 1280x960
Color Depth : 32


Rendering (Single CPU): 326 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 680 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 2.08

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 372 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1405 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2677 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 7.19




========Horsie photoshop CS2 rotate test=========================

took 30 seconds (29.6 to be exact)

[Multimedia]

Some of the PS filters will use all four cores. For example, the spinning horse test which uses the radial blur takes 19 seconds and all fours pop to life. It is a beautiful thing to watch.

For tasks that only see two cores, there is still a benefit with the Quad system. The two core app (or process) can have 200% cpu because the system and other processes can use the left over cpu's to run. There isn't a lot of speed gained, but there is a lot of productivity gained. You can encode a DVD or crunch mp4 at 200% while working at 200% in FCP or PS!

I wish all apps were Quad enabled and am shocked that FCP is not, but there is a hint of silver lining with the productivity gains.Only a handful of filters work on four cores. Adobe is working on this.

We should see FCP working on four by the time the NAB show is on in April.I think we will see a lot revealed in April. When the Universal FCS ships by the end of March, Apple will probably tell us it uses all four OR four core aware Universal FCS will be promised at NAB as a future free upgrade ASAP or perhaps even with a target date for completion.

I totally agree with Newbie npm that the Quad is great for multitasking. I think this is more important to keep in mind than wiether or not an applicaiton can see only one, two or all four right now. When I was trying to crush video from EyeTV2 to iPod size on the Dual 2.5 it would bring the computer to its knees like back in 1984-86 when you had to take breaks to add a period in PageMaker. I mean it really felt like an old 68000 Mac it was taht bad. With all four crushing, which it does use, there is still enough headroom to multitask on other applications. Quad owners have the advantage of watching Apple and 3rd party developers release updates that use all 4 processors so our computers will be going faster and faster over the next year or so until the 8 core systems ship next Spring 2007 when some of us will want to double our multiprocessing pleasure ASAP. :p

I am so glad I was able to sell my Dual 2.5 for $2500 last week after buying a Quad from the Apple refurb page for $3029 including sales tax. Only had to order 4 GB RAM ($300) to take it to 6. One of the benefits of buying refurbs is that they often ship over specification. Mine was supposed to have only 512 MB of RAM in the form of 2 x 256MB sticks. It came with 2 x 1GB sticks. :p

Any lurkers here who haven't made the leap from Dual to Quad, I say Dual's days are numbered and that number is LESS THAN 365.:D

[JW Pepper]

Lightwave may be an obscure application, but I think it is the best benchmark for comparing crossplatform hardware performance. There is no monkey business just tough tests.

Take a look at Chris' Lightwave Benchmarks (http://www.blanos.com/benchmark/)

It won't be long before a MacPro benchmark will appear here as these guys will go out and buy one if it saves them wasted rendering time.

[playaj82]

Depends on what version of XBench you are using...the most recent version uses a different scale, so if you're comparing an old score to the new score it will be severly skewed.

My score of 110 with my powerbook went to 42 when the newest version came out.

[DakotaGuy]

Wow this thread was brought back from the dead!

Now why again are we discussing these "old" slow computers??? Heck it's been proven that even a Core Duo will outrun most G5's, so it's time to completely forget about PowerPC products. They are done!!! Gone!!! FOREVER! As Steve would say...Obsolete!:)

[playaj82]

Wow this thread was brought back from the dead!

Now why again are we discussing these "old" slow computers??? Heck it's been proven that even a Core Duo will outrun most G5's, so it's time to completely forget about PowerPC products. They are done!!! Gone!!! FOREVER! As Steve would say...Obsolete!:)

But many of us are still waiting for that sacred Rev. B before diving into the Intel world.

[JW Pepper]

Heck it's been proven that even a Core Duo will outrun most G5's, so it's time to completely forget about PowerPC products. They are done!!! Gone!!! FOREVER! As Steve would say...Obsolete!:)
You can't be serious. I have a dual 2.5 G5, cost a fortune it cannot be obsolete, surley it will be ok for the next 10 years?

[DakotaGuy]

But many of us are still waiting for that sacred Rev. B before diving into the Intel world.

Why not make the jump??? I did with the iMac Core Duo and could not be happier. To your credit, the Rev. A MacBooks have turned out to be, well this harsh language, but sort of a lemon, like the first iMac G5. However I don't see that problem happening with the new MacPro's.

[DakotaGuy]

You can't be serious. I have a dual 2.5 G5, cost a fortune I cannot be obsolete, surley it will be ok for the next 10 years?

Hey that is a nice computer and I am sure it is plenty fast, but if you asked Steve he would tell you it's "obsolete!"

If you have ever seen the video from Saturday Night Live when they have "Steve Jobs" on Weekend Update introducing the new iPod, you would get the joke.

I don't think any computer will last 10 years...things in technology change too fast, however you should be good for 5 years as long as Apple keeps supporting PowerPC in their software updates.

BTW...sorry for posting twice in a row...i kind of got ahead of myself...

[playaj82]

Why not make the jump??? I did with the iMac Core Duo and could not be happier. To your credit, the Rev. A MacBooks have turned out to be, well this harsh language, but sort of a lemon, like the first iMac G5. However I don't see that problem happening with the new MacPro's.

I also can't make the jump because I have a G4 and a G5 that I have to get rid of first.

[sauria]

My Quad is planty fast. I'll be using a Xeon Quad at work and we'll see if it's "faster" at most things other than benchmarks.