PowerMac Dual 2.0GHz PS7Bench Benchmarks [Archive]

Tiauguinho

Sep 17, 2003, 08:44 PM

The Fastest Computer in the world is true! :) We finnaly have our deserved crown for owning them all! Hurray for the G5!

2x 2000 G5 OSX 10.2.7 (G5 plugin) 547 (energy settings highest perf)
2x 3060 Xeon (OC'd 2400) 488
2x 2930 Xeon (OC'd 2400) 471
3200 P4 (800MHz) 427
3000 P4 (800MHz) 405
3495 P4 (OC'd 3.06) 386
3060 P4 XP Pro (533 FSB) 358 HT
2x 2200 Xeon PC 800 RDRAM CPQ Evo 357 HT
2x 1500 G4 (OC'd 1420) 348
2x 1333 G4 DDR OS9.2 (oc'd 1.25) 346
1800 G5 OSX 10.2.7 (G5 plugin) 344 (energy settings highest perf)
2x 1420 G4 OSX 10.2.4 338
2x 2400+Athlon MP 338
2x 1250 G4 OS 9.2.2j 337
3200+Athlon XP 332
1800 Opteron(dual-chnlDDR 333) 332
2x 1333 G4 DDR OSX10.2.2(oc 1.25) 326
1800 OPteron(singl-chnlDDR333) 320
3000+Athlon XP 318
2x 1250 G4 OSX 10.2.5 318
2x 1250 G4 DDR OSX 10.2.1 316
2x 1800 Athlon MP 312
2800+Athlon XP Barton 298
2x 2000 P4 Xeon 286
2x 1200 G4Powerlogix(867MHzG4/QS) 285 upgraded
2x 1533 Athlon MP 285
2x 1533 Athlon MP 283
2530 P4 mobile (OC'd 1400) 282
2700 P4B (OC 2400, 600 MHz FSB)280
2x 1466 Athlon XP 279
1600 G5 OSX 10.2.7w/G5 Plugin 276 *MacNNscores
2666 P4 (DDR 333) 269
2x 1000 G4 DDR 10.2 267
2400+Athlon XP 262
2x 1000 G4 OS9 260
2x 1000 G4 OSX 10.1.5 254
2400+Athlon 252
2400 P4B (800MHz) 251
2400b (sis 648 DDR400) 251
1600 Centrino IBM T40 250
2400 P4 (533MHz bus) 249
2400 P4 B 241
2340 P4 (overclock) 239
1600 Centrino Dell D800 236
2400 P4 234
1800+Athlon XP (1533 MHz) 226
1577 oc'd Athlon XP (Lestat) 221
2x 1000 G4 OSX 10.2.2 (upgraded) 218 ?!(dual 533 logic board)
1548 Athlon XP 214
1670 Athlon XP (2000+) 213
1667 Athlon XP 211
1400 Athlon XP 1600+ xp pro 200
1x 1533 Athlon MP 197
1300 Centrino Sony VAIO Z1A 196
1000 G4 17" Powrbk OSX 10.2.6 196
2000 P4 Xeon 194
1400 Athlon XP 1600+'98SE 191
1000 G4 OSX TiPbk 10.2.2 185
2x 533 G4 OSX 10.1.5 175
2x 533 G4 OS 9.2.2 174
1800 P4 173
1200 AthlonMP 168
1508 Celeron (overclock) 167
1400 PIII Tualatin 160 **?
2x 550 G4 OSX 10.2.3 (OC Cube) 160 **?
2x 500 G4 OSX 152
2x 450 G4 OS9 151
1333 Athlon TBird 147
2x 450 G4 OSX 10.1.5 143
800 G4 Pbook OSX 1MB L3 135
733 G4 (miro7) 134
667 G4 PBk OS9 noL3 127
667 G4 PBk OSX 10.2.3 no L3 125
466 G4 OS9 123
667 G4 OSX TiPBk 10.1.5 noL3 121
866 PIII 114
466 G4 OSX 133 MHz bus 112
550 G4 Powrbk OS9* 104
500 G4 Pbook (OC'd 400) 103
1x 450 G4 OSX 100 MHz bus 101
1000 Athlon TBird (PS6.01) 100
550 G4 Powrbk OSX* 95
933 Transmeta Crusoe Sony 78
700 G3 iBook 74
600 G3 iBook OS 9.2.2j 70
233 PII 30

JPGR_Fan

Sep 17, 2003, 08:53 PM

The chart looks good.
Something to take my mind off Isabel.

dho

Sep 17, 2003, 08:57 PM

I want one:D

MrMacMan

Sep 17, 2003, 09:23 PM

Good Good.

Freg3000

Sep 17, 2003, 09:32 PM

:) :) :) :)

This is good. I finally feel like we are faster.

QCassidy352

Sep 17, 2003, 09:34 PM

what I like most is that in some cases, the G5 crushes the competition, but when it loses, it's never by much.

Macmaniac

Sep 17, 2003, 09:36 PM

My only question is was the RAM used in each machine the same beacause RAM makes a huge difference in Photoshop tests, a MacAddict article showed when they did 512mb RAM vs 2GB of RAM in G5's the 2 giger was almost 20 times faster in some spots.

mvc

Sep 17, 2003, 09:36 PM

Yep, it would be difficult even for a rapid PC zealot to deny that the dual 2 GHz G5 is among the fastest of the available machines, but I'm sure we will shortly hear from one trying :D

TMay

Sep 17, 2003, 09:42 PM

The results would seem to vindicate the G5 architecture, and I would expect better results in the future as optimization continues through Photoshop 8. Still, the P4 3200 800 Mhz bus version did quite well for a single processor.

Interesting that the 1800 dual channel DDR333 Opteron was just a tad slower than an equivalent G5. I would like to see the faster bus versions of the Opteron to see how they hold up (I consider the Opteron the natural rival to the 970, not Pentium or Xeon).

That said, what's with the pathetic results from the dual Xeon's? Those babies should be put down.

ffakr

Sep 17, 2003, 09:43 PM

I hope this quells some of the 'Steve Jobs is a liar' crap I've been seeing around the net... even on these and other Mac boards.

It's pretty sad when people are so quick to ignore the architecture... to assume that when early benchmarks on unoptimized code, or against fudged PC scores don't show vast 970 superiority.... to assume that the new machine is crap and that Apple is lying about performance figures that will be thoroughly tested asap.

Maybe this is one of the first signs that the machines are indeed fast, very fast. It is, afterall, a dual 2GHz machine on 1GHz frontside buses, with a max theoretical IPC of 8 (wow).

I think even the Mac bashers will eventually just shut up when more benchmarks are run. PS 7 is only slightly optimised for the G5. There is a lot of Altivec code in PShop that is optimised for the G4... code that will run like crap on the G5. Just wait till Photoshop 8 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/08/20030811221247.shtml) running on Panther.

:-)

The real question will be Athlon64fx and Prescott.
Athlon64 is a hot chip and it will likely pass the 970 in clock at first. The 970 can have more in flight instructions though, and a higher IPC, and better SIMD performance.
Prescott is a bigger danger though. It's still a 'netburst' P4 though there are apparently significant updates to the core. L2 us supposedly going up to 2MB, though heat output will be over 100watts to get all that. It will be a fast processor though... I think we'll need a speed bump in the G5s to fend off the Prescott on code that doesn't make extensive use of SMP.

ffakr... still waiting on his budget for the new Mac.

simX

Sep 17, 2003, 09:45 PM

OK, hands up: who *REALLY* thought that the performance of a dual 2 GHz G5 was going to be any less spectacular and wouldn't blow away the competition?

*truthfully keeps hand down* ;)

PowerBook User

Sep 17, 2003, 09:53 PM

I'm impressed. And this is just the first revision of the G5. Not bad at all.

sososowhat

Sep 17, 2003, 09:55 PM

I've got my shiny new 1.8 w/ 2.5G RAM & I'd like to run the benchmark on my machine. Is it available for download?

Apologies if I'm missing something obvious - just a little excited perhaps :)

mvc

Sep 17, 2003, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by simX
OK, hands up: who *REALLY* thought that the performance of a dual 2 GHz G5 was going to be any less spectacular and wouldn't blow away the competition?

*truthfully keeps hand down* ;)

Well, I'm a true mac zealot, but I don't expect we will be faster in everyway and every test. We have always done well in Photoshop tests.

It's inconceiveable that, over time, the mainstream PCs will not naturally be superior in speed that a niche player like the Mac - this current good result is really a sweet spot due to a good new architecture competing against either old / inefficient / overstretched / poorly implemented or undeveloped ones.

Logically, it cannot stay this way when so much more money overall is being poured into the competitions R&D, no matter how clever IBM's engineers are. Only if we somehow gain a more major marketshare (say over 10%), will there be any real hope of sustaining this sort of result.

Ask yourself, why did Motorola go from being a successful fast chip maker to a laggard? (apart from general incompetence)?

Because they don't care about the Powerpc as a standalone Computer platform, because it doesn't make enough money. IBM has a more vested interest with their servers using related Power4 architecture, but there are no guarantees they will advance the consumer spinoff 970-9X0 chips as fast.

That said, Hooray for the little guy!

arn

Sep 17, 2003, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by sososowhat
I've got my shiny new 1.8 w/ 2.5G RAM & I'd like to run the benchmark on my machine. Is it available for download?

Apologies if I'm missing something obvious - just a little excited perhaps :)

http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Cafe/4363/download.html

nospleen

Sep 17, 2003, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by sososowhat
I've got my shiny new 1.8 w/ 2.5G RAM & I'd like to run the benchmark on my machine. Is it available for download?

Apologies if I'm missing something obvious - just a little excited perhaps :)

Someone give this man a link. Have you xbenched yet? My stock 1.8 was 154, I would like to see what the ram does to the score.

e-coli

Sep 17, 2003, 10:04 PM

And it's going to be at 3GHz by the end of next year.

How great for Apple. They really pulled a rabbit out of their hat with the G5.

sososowhat

Sep 17, 2003, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by nospleen
Someone give this man a link. Have you xbenched yet? My stock 1.8 was 154, I would like to see what the ram does to the score.

Thanks & thank you Arn. I'll try to find xbench. I guess I should have realized that PSBench would work better if I had Photoshop, which I don't :mad: .

I will post xbench, assuming I've got all the right s/w, but might not get to it till later tonight though - got to step out for a bit.

Macco

Sep 17, 2003, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by Tiauguinho

2x 2000 G5 OSX 10.2.7 (G5 plugin) 547 (energy settings highest perf)

<...snip...>

700 G3 iBook 74
600 G3 iBook OS 9.2.2j 70
233 PII 30

Wow I almost feel sorry for that iBook.

mvc

Sep 17, 2003, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by Macco
Wow I almost feel sorry for that iBook.

Yeah, I have an 800MHz, the G5 would eat it for breakfast. And as for my Dual 450 G4 (My main work machine - pity me!)

Edit -found what i wanted by reading the whole list (duh)

Raiden

Sep 17, 2003, 10:50 PM

hey guys lay off the 600 ibook! :) Its not as bad as the pitiful benchmark scores say. I mean the one im on right now runs jag great.

and yeah, those dual G5 scores are insane!! w00t for apple!

Photorun

Sep 17, 2003, 10:54 PM

Woohoo!!! Though I'm skeptical, if Apple/IBM can get to 3.0 GHz by next year, with the 1.5 bus pipelines, it'll smoke Intel offerings as their chips are being milked out. AMD may be a different story but the masses of peecee users and the ************ monopolies in the WIntel world will keep AMD from being a serious threat. By next year the G5 may just be not just barely beating but righteously spanking all other competitors!

Kid Red

Sep 17, 2003, 11:12 PM

Trolls must be out because i can't figure out why this article has 2 negative votes. I wish those voting results would be taken away, they degrade from the article.

3.1416

Sep 17, 2003, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by mvc
It's inconceiveable that, over time, the mainstream PCs will not naturally be superior in speed that a niche player like the Mac

I disagree. For most of the lifetime of the PowerPC processors, they have been faster than the contemporary x86 competitors. The G4 debacle is the exception, not the rule. The PPC architecture is a fundamentally better design than the legacy-encrusted x86, so it is quite possible to make superior chips with fewer resources.

If money were all it took, Windows would be light years ahead of Mac OS X.

Mav451

Sep 17, 2003, 11:31 PM

Pretty good results--as i've said b4, this is one of Apple's strongpoints--and it shows :)

What i'm disappointed about the list is that it does not show the most CURRENT PC side processors overclocked.

The 845 chipset is VERY last year. I'd like to see the 800fsb cpu/chipset OCed.

Take for example the 2.4C. Cost effective at a palty 170bucks, coupled with your 150buck Abit IC7, FSB overclocks of 900-950 are easily achieved. 1000fsb will take a bit more voltage/cooling, but has been done.

Ditto for the 3200+. Take the 2500+ instead, bring up the fsb to 220 (which is literally guaranteed on any ultra 400 board, but particularly the gigabyte and nf7-s). A decent overclock with the nf7-s is around 220fsb * 10.5x = 2310mhz.

Not the highest (i.e. 240 fsb), and 2310 is definitely not the best overclock (2600-2700mhz is common on water); but it should provide a decent impression of the "overclocked" barton.

Still, the bottom line is that the G5 wins NOT OVERCLOCKED--and that is a good thing.

(i'm ALMOST running 200fsb, but i'm running an old board :( I'm pretty sure it's ram limited as i could run my current settings @ 1.675 vcore, with TIGHT timings, while 9.5*200 wouldn't even run with 2.8vdimm, 11-4-4-3 timings, or 1.725 vcore.)

solvs

Sep 17, 2003, 11:44 PM

OC'ing doesn't count.

But I'm sure some people will contest that this test is inaccurate. They will run other tests showing the G5 losing. Then people will complain that the softwares not optimised. And it will go back and forth like that forever.

BUT WHO CARES! In the real world, its fast. That's all there is to it. Benchmarks, schmenchmarks.

socbyset

Sep 17, 2003, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by mvc
...

It's inconceiveable that, over time, the mainstream PCs will not naturally be superior in speed that a niche player like the Mac - this current good result is really a sweet spot due to a good new architecture competing against either old / inefficient / overstretched / poorly implemented or undeveloped ones.

Logically, it cannot stay this way when so much more money overall is being poured into the competitions R&D, no matter how clever IBM's engineers are. Only if we somehow gain a more major marketshare (say over 10%), will there be any real hope of sustaining this sort of result.

Ask yourself, why did Motorola go from being a successful fast chip maker to a laggard? (apart from general incompetence)?

Because they don't care about the Powerpc as a standalone Computer platform, because it doesn't make enough money. IBM has a more vested interest with their servers using related Power4 architecture, but there are no guarantees they will advance the consumer spinoff 970-9X0 chips as fast.

...

It's true that intel has an advantage in r&d and sheer volume. Ever since the powerpc came out people have been predicting that soon Apple will pull away as the inherent advantages of the RISC platform became evident, but what we have had was more or less a game of leapfrog.

But I do think that things are looking brighter for the Mac performancewise with their new relationship with IBM. From what have read Mot could not keep good engineering talent. They seem to be a badly run company, and only halfheartedly commited to being in the chip business. Besides which they were aiming the G4 at embedded applications.

IBM on the other hand has state of the art fabs, and have committed to staying on the cutting edge of process technology. How many breakthroughs in process technology have you ever heard of Motorola ever having? And the new 9xx series utilizes the R&D from their top of the line workstation chips. Whats more if they put 9xx into their own workstations and blades, they have all the more incentive to keep them cutting edge and prices will benefit from the economies of scale.

Mav451

Sep 17, 2003, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by solvs
OC'ing doesn't count.

But I'm sure some people will contest that this test is inaccurate. They will run other tests showing the G5 losing. Then people will complain that the softwares not optimised. And it will go back and forth like that forever.

BUT WHO CARES! In the real world, its fast. That's all there is to it. Benchmarks, schmenchmarks.

dude did you even READ my post? I mention OCing b/c they display results for the OCed Xeon (2.4 @ 3.06) and "old" 3.06 @ 349.

2ndly, where the heck do i say that this test is inaccurate? Did you come up with that misconception by yourself?

Don't stereotype and lookdown on overclocking just because you do not understand it.

Look at my sig--it is 100% safe b/c the only issue with overclocking is too much voltage (i.e. 1.8v +, i'm not in that range), PCI bus overclock? (nope, nforce2 and all modern Intel boards lock them at 33, agp @ 66 respectively).

And actually the #1 cause of failure is heat. Most newbies do not understand that they cannot overclock with "stock" equipment. Spending 30bucks for that Swiftech or Thermalright SLK will pay HEAVY HEAVY dividends in increased stability, more headroom, and overall lower case temperatures.

raynegus

Sep 18, 2003, 12:02 AM

Cool pic series. Feels like I just bought one. Kid on x-mas morning.

moby1

Sep 18, 2003, 12:28 AM

I think it's slowly sinking into the population just how impressive the G5 is.

Looking at the G5 brochure the bench for BLAST is quite impressive vs. PC arch. running Red Hat. Does anyone have more information on BLAST scores. I'm intersted because we have so much BioTech near where I live and I'd love to see some all-G5 labs. :)

dongmin

Sep 18, 2003, 12:45 AM

1. Panther should speed things up even more. According to Barefeats, it's around 40% faster than Jag in certain key Xbench tests. Can't wait.

2. 50% (3 ghz) by next August, as Jobs reaffirmed. The way things are going with IBM, I'd say that's a conservative estimate. And with the 90-nano process 970s, it'll run even cooler. So we're talking more powerful, but with less heat and noise.

3. And third-party software optimizations should take things even further.

Mav451

Sep 18, 2003, 12:45 AM

Haha i wish UMD had that. UMD is under so many budget cuts we're just hoping we don't lose more dining services, or even basic services. The convenience stores hours have been ridiculously cut, so i doubt new computers would even be feasible :(

pjhornak

Sep 18, 2003, 01:10 AM

06/24/2003
08:40 AM PST XXXXXXXXX • POWER MAC G5 2.0GHZDP CTO
Shipped

POWER MAC G5 2.0GHZDP CTO

Buyers Name:
Web Order Number:
Apple Sales Order Number:
Apple Delivery Number:
Apple Customer Number:
PO Number:

Dear Apple Customer,

The following products shipped on 09/17/2003. Transit time will
depend upon whether you have chosen standard or premium freight
options. If your order is shipping standard freight, it should arrive
within 2 - 5 business days of shipment.

Product # Product Description Qty Ext Price
__________ ________________________________________ ____ ________________

_________________________________________________________________________
Z07K POWER MAC G5 2.0GHZDP CTO 1 3,349.00
With the following configuration:

Processor 065-4227 Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5
Memory 065-4356 512MB DDR400 (PC3200) - 2x256
Hard Drive 065-4376 160GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
Optical Drive 065-4168 Super Drive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
Graphics Support 065-4288 ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
Fibre Chl PCI 065-4491 None
Modem 065-4166 56k V.92 Internal Modem
BlueTooth 065-4292 BlueTooth Module
Airport 065-1899 None
Keyboard Language 065-4161 Apple Keyboard & Mouse
Mac OS Language 065-4160 Mac OS X
Country Kit 065-4159 Country Kit

Looks like I better get my camera ready....

I almost fell off my chair when I saw shipped...as you can see above it was CTO ordered the day after at an Apple Store in NJ...

Hopefully I will have pictures of me chasing the FedEx truck down the street....

Good luck to everyone else hope they come soon...

My est ship date was 22 September but the Apple care person said it would go out on the 20th....

Ok now I can go back to loving Apple and Steve again.... hopefully the rest of you will too...
_________________________________________________________________________
:cool: :)

solvs

Sep 18, 2003, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by Mav451
dude did you even READ my post? I mention OCing b/c they display results for the OCed Xeon (2.4 @ 3.06) and "old" 3.06 @ 349.

2ndly, where the heck do i say that this test is inaccurate? Did you come up with that misconception by yourself?

Don't stereotype and lookdown on overclocking just because you do not understand it.

Look at my sig--it is 100% safe b/c the only issue with overclocking is too much voltage (i.e. 1.8v +, i'm not in that range), PCI bus overclock? (nope, nforce2 and all modern Intel boards lock them at 33, agp @ 66 respectively).

And actually the #1 cause of failure is heat. Most newbies do not understand that they cannot overclock with "stock" equipment. Spending 30bucks for that Swiftech or Thermalright SLK will pay HEAVY HEAVY dividends in increased stability, more headroom, and overall lower case temperatures.

Dude, relax. That wasn't a personal attack. When I hit reply, your post wasn't even there. I just noticed it as I began typing the comment that you might want to read again. Perhaps it would have been better if I tossed in a :p or a ;) to better make my point. You know, "yeah but overclocking doesn't count". Ha ha, you know. It's cool, we're all friends here.

And I could tell you about my custom built PCs, like the one I'm currently running (sorry, but VPC is slow, and it was cheap, and I had lots of parts laying around, and for some stuff... I just need a PC). An AMD running at about 30 - 40 degrees load, custom cooling. I know all about OC'ing, I've done it, but it wasn't worth it to me. I prefer it to be quiet and fairly cool because what little I do with it doesn't require a lot of speed.

Apparently, you do, which is cool with me. I know all about OC'ing, the goods and the bads. And I'm very familiar with PC motherboards thank you very much. Intel and AMD. It's what I do. :D

My point was, that people are going to be arguing over these tests. It's good to see them, but even "real world" tests like these don't mean much. The G5s are fast. Yippy.

I apologize for making it seem like that was a slam against you. It wasn't.

Mav451

Sep 18, 2003, 01:45 AM

ok cool. I think OCing is getting your money's worth.

I paid 90bucks for my processor. It is reaching the same speeds as a 400 dollar one.

And cooling? It is not loud. All it took was a Thermalright SLK800 (30-40ish bucks) and a quiet Panaflo H1A (considerably quieter than its competitors.

39cfm for the same dba (32) as most case fans? Insane.

I replaced 4 of my case fans with panaflos and the sound literally dropped 20-30%. And the temperatures stayed the same, or got even lower (probably with the SLK800 that replaced the Volcano6cu).

Overclocking doesn't have to be loud :)
It just has to be done right--and with the right equipment. You GET WHAT YOU PAY for. (i.e. don't expect Coolermaster case quality for only 50 bucks).

ddbean

Sep 18, 2003, 01:49 AM

good to see real folks receiving their orders. :D

I'm updating from a 1994 6100/60 PPC w/233 Mhz G3 card, 2 gig hd, 72 MB ram, 4x cd, borrowed 15" monitor running OS8.6 to a Dual 2Ghz G5 w/ ATI Radeon 9800 Pro and 20" Apple Display. I ordered through local ind. Apple dealer and all they tell me is maybe before end of month. Paid check in full on July 27.

I want my G5 now!!!:mad:

pjhornak

Sep 18, 2003, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by ddbean
good to see real folks receiving their orders. :D

I'm updating from a 1994 6100/60 PPC w/233 Mhz G3 card, 2 gig hd, 72 MB ram, 4x cd, borrowed 15" monitor running OS8.6 to a Dual 2Ghz G5 w/ ATI Radeon 9800 Pro and 20" Apple Display. I ordered through local ind. Apple dealer and all they tell me is maybe before end of month. Paid check in full on July 27.

I want my G5 now!!!:mad:

brah... that is hardcore oldschool....do you ride a longboard...

Genie

Sep 18, 2003, 02:29 AM

Very exciting!

I feel like I did when I got my first G4, the first G4 model made, which is still performing very well for me.

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

sososowhat

Sep 18, 2003, 02:42 AM

Originally posted by nospleen
Someone give this man a link. Have you xbenched yet? My stock 1.8 was 154, I would like to see what the ram does to the score.
Ok, here you go: XBench on my 2.5Gig 1.8. Note: I don't know why it says I've got 2.0Gig memory. "About This Mac" confirms I've got 2.5.

Results 159.65
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.1
System Version 10.2.7 (G5) (6S80)
Physical RAM 2048 MB
Model PowerMac7,2
Processor PowerPC 970 @ 1.80 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1.80 GHz
Bus Frequency 900 MHz
Video Card GeForce FX 5200
Drive Type ST3160023AS
CPU Test 169.67
GCD Loop 100.74 3.93 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 291.19 1.05 Gflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 123.40 3.58 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 192.86 2.99 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 354.60 14.19 Mops/sec
Thread Test 105.67
Computation 75.49 604.43 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 176.03 2.21 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 275.95
System 279.79
Allocate 465.03 313.58 Kalloc/sec
Fill 193.70 1541.84 MB/sec
Copy 293.31 1466.53 MB/sec
Stream 272.21
Copy 230.57 1685.45 MB/sec [G5]
Scale 237.68 1754.10 MB/sec [G5]
Add 315.74 2020.71 MB/sec [G5]
Triad 335.27 2048.48 MB/sec [G5]
Quartz Graphics Test 188.71
Line 211.66 5.39 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 188.92 13.29 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 206.49 4.76 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 174.37 1.89 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 169.48 2.76 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 212.53
Spinning Squares 212.53 148.73 frames/sec
User Interface Test 179.32
Elements 179.32 57.68 refresh/sec
Disk Test 107.72
Sequential 113.23
Uncached Write 131.10 52.19 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 125.60 49.02 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 85.70 13.57 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 123.92 50.07 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 102.72
Uncached Write 100.42 1.44 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 100.22 22.60 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 99.70 0.66 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 111.43 22.93 MB/sec [256K blocks]

Genie

Sep 18, 2003, 03:07 AM

How soon do you think PC3200 DDR400 Gigabyte Ram sticks will be cost effective? (around $200, which is what two 512's cost).

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

mrwalker

Sep 18, 2003, 03:22 AM

Originally posted by Kid Red
...i can't figure out why this article has 2 negative votes...

Well, this IS negative for those favoring the PC... Some people do, y´know...

macphoria

Sep 18, 2003, 03:31 AM

This is definitely a promising news, of G5's capabilities. I hope this is still the case when 3GHz G5 comes out next August.

I haven't heard much about AMD or Intel's development. Anything new going on with those guys?

elmimmo

Sep 18, 2003, 04:04 AM

Originally posted by Macrumors
The new results have been added to the previous PS7Bench Benchmark chart (http://www.chaosmint.com/benchmarks/powermac-g5-ps7bench/). The PowerMac G5 Dual 2.0GHz results are the fastest in 15/21 of the tests run.

Why is everyone so surprised about? It has 2 frigging 2 GHz processors in it. It had BETTER be faster that one single Athlon 3000+, which does not even run at 3 Ghz.

The real winner, IMHO, is the G5 1,6. Compare figure by figure to the Athlon 3000+ and you will see that both computers are pretty much on pair.

jettredmont

Sep 18, 2003, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by mvc
Well, I'm a true mac zealot, but I don't expect we will be faster in everyway and every test. We have always done well in Photoshop tests.

Quite true. As is always the case, we'll win some and we'll lose some. I do think that we'll see ourselves winning a lot more frequently in the next couple of years than in the last couple.

It's inconceiveable that, over time, the mainstream PCs will not naturally be superior in speed that a niche player like the Mac - this current good result is really a sweet spot due to a good new architecture competing against either old / inefficient / overstretched / poorly implemented or undeveloped ones.

The chief advantage of the PPC platform, as others have pointed out, is that the architecture itself doesn't have an unweildy legacy to support (80086 instruction set support). The architecture was designed for the current state of the art, designed for today, for 64-bit computing.

The primary advantage of Intel is that its instruction set embodies the vast majority of non-custom software in the world. This is also its disadvantage, as it is next to impossible for Intel to innovate (Itanium has some good ideas in it, really) without bolting on the clumsy 1970's-designed 8086 compliance layer (IMHO the primary downfall of Itanium).

Logically, it cannot stay this way when so much more money overall is being poured into the competitions R&D, no matter how clever IBM's engineers are. Only if we somehow gain a more major marketshare (say over 10%), will there be any real hope of sustaining this sort of result.

How do the R&D budgets compare? I don't have exact figures, but IIRC the IBM microproc division's R&D budget is very close to if not equal to Intel's microproc R&D budget.

The key here is that IBM makes serious money off its server processors, far moreso than Intel.

Ask yourself, why did Motorola go from being a successful fast chip maker to a laggard? (apart from general incompetence)?

Motorola made fundamental business decisions which ruined them. Without going into a hundred-page analysis of what went wrong when, I think the primary decision was based on the supposition that the embedded devices market was going to be more lucrative and stable than the desktop processor market. Moto starved its microproc division of R&D funding, and made the fundamental decision that such was no longer their focus.

I believe the more important moral here is that no measure of dominance is permanent, and that at the end of the day it is more often business decisions that destroy technical dominance rather than technical failings destroying business dominance.

Such a cautionary tale is as applicable to Intel as it is to IBM.

Because they don't care about the Powerpc as a standalone Computer platform, because it doesn't make enough money. IBM has a more vested interest with their servers using related Power4 architecture, but there are no guarantees they will advance the consumer spinoff 970-9X0 chips as fast.

Correct. There are never any guarantees. However, it is far easier to spin off a 9x0 chip from a POWERx chip than it is for Intel to apply its Itanium research dollars to its Pentium line. This gives IBM a distinct advantage in consumer-level hardware research: it is a low-cost by-product of a strong and stable business. IBM might of course decide that this business is not in its best interests, but I think that of all the contenders for Intel's throne, IBM stands the tallest (yes, moreso than AMD).

In other words, if IBM's model for consumer chip development can't compete with Intel's dominance then I don't think anyone will be able to.

jettredmont

Sep 18, 2003, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by Raiden
hey guys lay off the 600 ibook! :) Its not as bad as the pitiful benchmark scores say. I mean the one im on right now runs jag great.

and yeah, those dual G5 scores are insane!! w00t for apple!

Note, of course, that the ibook fares so poorly because it does not support Altivec. It is somewhat remarkable, in fact, that the ibook without SIMD bests the P2 with MMX and, I believe SSE. Of course, I'm not positive that Photoshop takes advantage of MMX; it may require SSE or SSE2 on the Intel side ...

jettredmont

Sep 18, 2003, 04:38 AM

Originally posted by Mav451
Don't stereotype and lookdown on overclocking just because you do not understand it.

Look at my sig--it is 100% safe b/c the only issue with overclocking is too much voltage (i.e. 1.8v +, i'm not in that range), PCI bus overclock? (nope, nforce2 and all modern Intel boards lock them at 33, agp @ 66 respectively).

And actually the #1 cause of failure is heat. Most newbies do not understand that they cannot overclock with "stock" equipment. Spending 30bucks for that Swiftech or Thermalright SLK will pay HEAVY HEAVY dividends in increased stability, more headroom, and overall lower case temperatures.

Okay, show of hands.

How many people here would overclock their work machines?

How many IT folks here are ready to overclock their servers?

Overclocking is all well and good for non-mission-critical machines, but it does introduce consequences (less room for error, significantly increased reliance upon lack of failure in heat dissipation devices, and of course reliance upon a CPU operating under conditions for which it was never tested or certified). This is fine for the 1337 gamrz, but not exactly commonplace in the world of Photoshop business users.

That having been said, overclocking current CPUs does often give performance insight as to upcoming CPUs (as is the case with the Xeon). In the "currently available" benchmarking world, however, overclocked results are to be ignored as they are currently irrelevant.

Titian

Sep 18, 2003, 06:00 AM

I am a little bit confuse:
is PS the only application we can run on a Mac?

:rolleyes: :o

Analog Kid

Sep 18, 2003, 06:34 AM

singletrack

Sep 18, 2003, 06:37 AM

Those RGB-CMYK scores are nice. the G5 2.0 is 4 times faster than a PC. The 1.6 is about 2 times faster.

When you're doing a magazine with lots of photos in, converting RGB-CMYK is one of the most intensive things you do. You may do radial blurs and polar coordinates a few times but on 100s of pages of photos, I'll take the RGB-CMYK conversion scores any day.

I suspect the G4 is pretty quick at RGB-CMYK also though. Anyone got benchmarks for that?

themadchemist

Sep 18, 2003, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by ffakr
I hope this quells some of the 'Steve Jobs is a liar' crap I've been seeing around the net... even on these and other Mac boards.

It's pretty sad when people are so quick to ignore the architecture... to assume that when early benchmarks on unoptimized code, or against fudged PC scores don't show vast 970 superiority.... to assume that the new machine is crap and that Apple is lying about performance figures that will be thoroughly tested asap.

Maybe this is one of the first signs that the machines are indeed fast, very fast. It is, afterall, a dual 2GHz machine on 1GHz frontside buses, with a max theoretical IPC of 8 (wow).

I think even the Mac bashers will eventually just shut up when more benchmarks are run. PS 7 is only slightly optimised for the G5. There is a lot of Altivec code in PShop that is optimised for the G4... code that will run like crap on the G5. Just wait till Photoshop 8 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/08/20030811221247.shtml) running on Panther.

:-)

The real question will be Athlon64fx and Prescott.
Athlon64 is a hot chip and it will likely pass the 970 in clock at first. The 970 can have more in flight instructions though, and a higher IPC, and better SIMD performance.
Prescott is a bigger danger though. It's still a 'netburst' P4 though there are apparently significant updates to the core. L2 us supposedly going up to 2MB, though heat output will be over 100watts to get all that. It will be a fast processor though... I think we'll need a speed bump in the G5s to fend off the Prescott on code that doesn't make extensive use of SMP.

ffakr... still waiting on his budget for the new Mac.

Clock speed boost would be nice, but I think we're also going to need a L2 cache boost. Return of L3 would be great. Plus, Apple needs to regularly update the RAM speed that its motherboards can support.

That means that I'd like to see, in say 6 months, Apple selling G5s that support 466 or 533 MHz RAM.

It's all about staying current. We've seen it in the past: A new architecture (EVEN the G4, which we all LOVED, admit it) gives a needed infusion of strength to the pro line, but development slows quickly and Apple gets behind.

Apple needs to update the motherboard frequently, and even when it doesn't have a processor bump, it should at least quietly update other important things.

Convincing nVIDIA and ATI to shell out better Mac GPUs would be nice, too.

themadchemist

Sep 18, 2003, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by mvc

Logically, it cannot stay this way when so much more money overall is being poured into the competitions R&D, no matter how clever IBM's engineers are. Only if we somehow gain a more major marketshare (say over 10%), will there be any real hope of sustaining this sort of result.

You talk of IBM as if it were a ragtag bunch of youthful, but quick-witted engineers, with a couple of bucks and a little fab plant down the road. The vast resources of IBM's R&D are incomprehensible. IBM has its hand in every part of processor development, from the most basic physics research to the most specific PowerPC core development.

...And that architecture you mentioned...Well, when AMD, but more Intel, continuously heaps a bunch of new specialized instructions and features onto the same-old processor and overclocks it like anything, you'll get a faster, yes, but also more inefficient chip. Their designs aren't elegant, they are patchwork. It's not like their chip is faster because they actually redesigned it to be great, it's just that they pumped in a whole lot of crap to get one little bit of a rating.

glowrider

Sep 18, 2003, 08:02 AM

I'm pleased to say I can change my sig...My dp 2ghz G5 is en route and should be here by 10:30 am according to FedEx...Long day of class and **** first though:(

AidenShaw

Sep 18, 2003, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by themadchemist
Well, when AMD, but more Intel, continuously heaps a bunch of new specialized instructions and features onto the same-old processor and overclocks it like anything

Since the days of the P6 the Intel chips are really more like RISC processors that emulate the "same-old" x86 ISA. The internal core is not running x86.

That "same-old" instruction set is a burden, and makes it harder to make fast Pentiums, but your implication that a Pentium 4 is an overclocked 486 shouldn't be allowed to stand. (And fast clocking isn't overclocking....)

gotohamish

Sep 18, 2003, 09:17 AM

To the guy talking about low power 970s being quieter - have you used a G5?

I used a 1.8 recently, and could hardly tell the thing was ON. It was THAT quiet.

Cube style, only in the cube, you could hear the HDD.

H:D

Mav451

Sep 18, 2003, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by gotohamish
To the guy talking about low power 970s being quieter - have you used a G5?

I used a 1.8 recently, and could hardly tell the thing was ON. It was THAT quiet.

Cube style, only in the cube, you could hear the HDD.

H:D

But have you done any sort of cpu intensive task? Divx work, games :), and other similar cpu intensive task will heat up the cpu core--there is a difference between the idle temps and load temps of your cpu core--with the delta being bigger with the worse the heatsink.

When the cpu is @ idle, i too can throttle my cpu fan to < 2000rpm, but do i WANT to is the question.

Cubeboy

Sep 18, 2003, 10:04 AM

Very impressive scores, just goes to show how well the G5 can scale in comparison to the Xeon.

Tianguiho:
Excellent chart although it should be noted that the overall time (http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1552506#post1552506) I've seen from Dual 3.06 GHz Xeons are slightly faster than the overall time posted for the G5 (95.1 secs) (those normalized scores do correspond with overall times right?).

xtekdiver

Sep 18, 2003, 10:19 AM

What I want to see are the specs on this new G5 supercomputer cluster. A few pics would be cool too. ::hint::hint::

macmunch

Sep 18, 2003, 10:49 AM

The G5 wil lget even more and more and more faster in Future not only because of the Clock (3GHZ ind August 04), dont forgett the RAM DDR2 is coming and it should be no Prob for Apple to change controller settings so the G5 gets faster RAM and he self has no problems with it because on EVERY S*** MHz he gets MORE BUS SPEED !!! So DDR2 533 or more and a 3 GHz G5 with a incredible 1.5 GHz BUS thats why I say IBM is perfect and their chip also because Intel cant get that fast with the Bus, they must build new Revisions of their Chip -- IBM only must rise in Clock rest is doing alone !

F/reW/re

Sep 18, 2003, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by macmunch
The G5 wil lget even more and more and more faster in Future not only because of the Clock (3GHZ ind August 04), dont forgett the RAM DDR2 is coming and it should be no Prob for Apple to change controller settings so the G5 gets faster RAM and he self has no problems with it because on EVERY S*** MHz he gets MORE BUS SPEED !!! So DDR2 533 or more and a 3 GHz G5 with a incredible 1.5 GHz BUS thats why I say IBM is perfect and their chip also because Intel cant get that fast with the Bus, they must build new Revisions of their Chip -- IBM only must rise in Clock rest is doing alone !
Don't forget that the PC world is also on the move!
I guess at 23 sept. the PowerMac will not be the fastest computer any more, if it ever was.

This is how fast the AMD Opteron 246 is compared to the 242 version.
http://www.hardware.no/tester/cpu/opteron_246/prosentforskjell-242.png

macmunch

Sep 18, 2003, 11:53 AM

Yup right but the Hammer Processors also have a prob they have a intigrated DDR RAM controller as far as i know 266, yes its fast right now but they will have more to do to change it every revision. And I think IBM will rise Clock faster than AMD but not faster as Intel but Intel chips are not so fast with High clock rates as AMD or IBM is :D

FlamDrag

Sep 18, 2003, 12:08 PM

While I understand the strategy from Apple's sales standpoint, I wish that with the next update, you could still buy a dual 2.0 Ghz machine instead of a single as I expect them do to.

That is to say I expect the next update to be: single 1.8, single 2.0 and dual 2.5(ish).

F/reW/re

Sep 18, 2003, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by macmunch
Yup right but the Hammer Processors also have a prob they have a intigrated DDR RAM controller as far as i know 266, yes its fast right now but they will have more to do to change it every revision. And I think IBM will rise Clock faster than AMD but not faster as Intel but Intel chips are not so fast with High clock rates as AMD or IBM is :D
Is this a bad thing? When the CPU speed goes up, the integrated ram controller will also do so.
This means that you get a lower latency and you dont have to boost the FSB when the MHz is getting higher. So far the 246 uses DDR333.
When windows gets 64 bit and the software to it will be even faster.
The new Opteron has a great future!

Don't think Mac people would choose a Opteron over a G5 because it runst 2 sec faster in a Photoshop test. I personaly choose Mac because of the feeling I get when I use it.
I really hope Macromedia 2004 is better than MX series on the Mac-platform. MX and flashplayer is so much better on Windows. This is my biggest consern after price.

mdntcallr

Sep 18, 2003, 12:20 PM

One important item to not forget, this is without the fully optimized OS X 10.3 which takes full potential of the 64 processors.

Also, the program isnt optimized for it yet either.

so......... my bet is that this will become one smoking machine when it advances more.

also.... all bets are off when the next version comes with faster chips. whoah.

Mav451

Sep 18, 2003, 12:42 PM

the opteron is ALSO not optimized, and not in 64-bit mode. Those benchmarks are ALL in 32-bit mode, just like the G5's current benchmarks have all been in 32-bit.

Secondly, Athlon64 will be supporting ddr400 dual channel and HIGHER. The majority of Opteron benches are hampered by ddr333 and only amdzone and another site have actually used the ddr400 registered memory to show the opteron with "room to stretch its legs".

As the Opteron has an on-die memory controller, slower ddr333 has heavy ramifications in slowing down cpu.

On another note, i ran the PSBench and got MUCH slower times than the ones posted by Acehardware.

Am i missing a SSE/AthlonXP plugin for Photoshop 7?

Thanks.

whooleytoo

Sep 18, 2003, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by F/reW/re
Don't forget that the PC world is also on the move!
I guess at 23 sept. the PowerMac will not be the fastest computer any more, if it ever was.

Apple never claimed the G5 was the fastest computer, but the fastest personal computer - a different thing. Anyone doubting that the G5, and the Itanium and Opteron are in different fields, should look at sales figures ( figures from The Register, sourced from IDC (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/32619.html) ). The G5 pre-orders alone dwarfed the entire quarterly sales of the other two chips combined.

Mike.

Cubeboy

Sep 18, 2003, 01:35 PM

Comparison of scores between G5 and Xeon:

0.30 | 0.30- Tie
1.30 | 2.10- G5 62%
1.20 | 2.00- G5 66%
0.30 | 0.60- G5 100%
1.20 | 1.30- G5 8.3%
1.80 | 1.60- Xeon 13%
0.50 | 0.60- G5 20%
1.40 | 1.30- Xeon 8%
1.60 | 1.30- Xeon 23%
0.40 | 1.30- G5 225%
1.70 | 5.40- G5 318%
0.40 | 0.50- G5 25%
3.30 | 1.40- Xeon 136%
2.80 | 2.20- Xeon 28%
3.20 | 2.90- Xeon 10%
12.1 | 11.8- Xeon 3%
10.7 | 6.70- Xeon 60%
26.7 | 28.2- G5 6%
2.20 | 3.30- G5 50%
20.4 | 17.3- Xeon 18%
1.60 | 1.30- Xeon 23%

Xeon won 10/21 filters
Mean Deviation between Xeon and G5 in filters won by Xeon: 32%

G5 also won 10/21 filters
Mean Deviation between Xeon and G5 in filters won by G5: 88%

Again, highly impressive.

Genie

Sep 18, 2003, 01:36 PM

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

Isn't the opteron way more expensive than the G5?

I priced a dual 3.02 xeon that was $1000 more than my Dual2.0G5.

I'd like to see a Windoze box compete on price with the Dual 2.0.
Is any such beast on the horizon?

dongmin

Sep 18, 2003, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by Cubeboy
Very impressive scores, just goes to show how well the G5 can scale in comparison to the Xeon.

Tianguiho:
Excellent chart although it should be noted that the overall time (http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1552506#post1552506) I've seen from Dual 3.06 GHz Xeons are slightly faster than the overall time posted for the G5 (95.1 secs) (those normalized scores do correspond with overall times right?).

Normalized scores do NOT correspond with overall times. In overall times, tests that take longer (like the watercolor filter) dominate over the shorter-timed tests. So a machine that does better in the longer-timed tests would have an advantage. Normalized scores gives each test equal weight.

Stelliform

Sep 18, 2003, 03:36 PM

I would love to see how many points is produces folding for a few days. I am working on a Dual Xeon Server at the moment and It was pumping out an average of 80pts a day.

Cubeboy

Sep 18, 2003, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by dongmin
Normalized scores do NOT correspond with overall times. In overall times, tests that take longer (like the watercolor filter) dominate over the shorter-timed tests. So a machine that does better in the longer-timed tests would have an advantage. Normalized scores gives each test equal weight.

I was under the assumption that the scores were only normalized to that of a 1 GHz thunderbird. You mean to take the geometric mean of the normalized scores, right?

macrumors12345

Sep 18, 2003, 05:11 PM

Hmmm....now where is Neotronik? According to what he said in his previous posts about the "disappointing" G5/1.6 PSBench results, he should now reinstate the "order" (that I doubt he ever had) for the Dual G5. Not that I am trying to attract trolls back to the forums.

sjk

Sep 18, 2003, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Genie
How soon do you think PC3200 DDR400 Gigabyte Ram sticks will be cost effective? (around $200, which is what two 512's cost).Unfortunately not soon enough for a less expensive BTO option of the factory-installed 1GB SO-DIMM on new Powerbooks and iMacs. That made it less tempting to upgrade my iBook 600 to a Powerbook.

I'd like to buy some new Mac this year but it's not an obvious choice since I've already decided to hold off on the G5 'til at least the next revision.

WM.

Sep 18, 2003, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by ddbean
I'm updating from a 1994 6100/60 PPC w/233 Mhz G3 card, 2 gig hd, 72 MB ram, 4x cd, borrowed 15" monitor running OS8.6 to a Dual 2Ghz G5 w/ ATI Radeon 9800 Pro and 20" Apple Display.
Wow, I thought it was a big jump when my mom upgraded from a 6115CD (stock HD, processor, and CD drive, running 8.1) to a 700 MHz G4 iMac. But I think you've got her beat! :D

WM

geerlingguy

Sep 19, 2003, 08:39 AM

AppleWorks 6.3 Scrolling ???
Where did this come from? Is there a new version that Apple secretly released to whomever did this benchmarking? I want that update! Apple's site only has 6.2.7... Is there finally support for Office that doesn't screw up the formatting? Can I finally do great things with tables?:D

geerlingguy

Sep 19, 2003, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by WM.
Wow, I thought it was a big jump when my mom upgraded from a 6115CD (stock HD, processor, and CD drive, running 8.1) to a 700 MHz G4 iMac. But I think you've got her beat! :D

WM

How about when my aunt upgraded from a Mac Plus to a Dual G4 500?

macmunch

Sep 19, 2003, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by F/reW/re
Is this a bad thing? When the CPU speed goes up, the integrated ram controller will also do so.
This means that you get a lower latency and you dont have to boost the FSB when the MHz is getting higher. So far the 246 uses DDR333.
When windows gets 64 bit and the software to it will be even faster.
The new Opteron has a great future!

Don't think Mac people would choose a Opteron over a G5 because it runst 2 sec faster in a Photoshop test. I personaly choose Mac because of the feeling I get when I use it.
I really hope Macromedia 2004 is better than MX series on the Mac-platform. MX and flashplayer is so much better on Windows. This is my biggest consern after price.

Hmm, as far as I know the must redisign the Ram controlleri n the Chip, its also a expensive way to build a Chip as I read. So the way from IBM or Intel I like more.

But see it so the G5/Hammer/P4 are fast in their own ways every Chip has a optimized App only for him so ... choose what you need
I would say the G5 is great, after a long time its a Chip which is good as AMD or Intel chips even better.

A long time ago we had a Chip witch is so powerful :D

rjstanford

Sep 19, 2003, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by whooleytoo
Anyone doubting that the G5, and the Itanium and Opteron are in different fields, should look at sales figures ( figures from The Register, sourced from IDC (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/32619.html) ). The G5 pre-orders alone dwarfed the entire quarterly sales of the other two chips combined. So... I guess by that logic then that Apple's G5 isn't in the same league as, oh, the Pentium, and shouldn't be compared to one? C'mon... I'm not saying that your point wasn't (slightly) valid, but your reasoning surely isn't.

-Richard

whooleytoo

Sep 19, 2003, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by rjstanford
So... I guess by that logic then that Apple's G5 isn't in the same league as, oh, the Pentium, and shouldn't be compared to one? C'mon... I'm not saying that your point wasn't (slightly) valid, but your reasoning surely isn't.

-Richard

Aw, I quite liked my reasoning.. ;)

Given that Apple only has a 2 or 3% total market share, it's relatively unlikely it's ever going to have a 90+% market share in any individual sector - such as 64bit workstations or servers.

If the G5 was purely a 64bit workstation, then based on the Opteron and Itanium sales you'd only expect a thousand or so to be sold. The fact that it has sold over a hundred times that indicates the G5 is aimed at a much larger demographic.

Mike.

daveL

Sep 19, 2003, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by themadchemist
Clock speed boost would be nice, but I think we're also going to need a L2 cache boost. Return of L3 would be great. Plus, Apple needs to regularly update the RAM speed that its motherboards can support.

That means that I'd like to see, in say 6 months, Apple selling G5s that support 466 or 533 MHz RAM.

It's all about staying current. We've seen it in the past: A new architecture (EVEN the G4, which we all LOVED, admit it) gives a needed infusion of strength to the pro line, but development slows quickly and Apple gets behind.

Apple needs to update the motherboard frequently, and even when it doesn't have a processor bump, it should at least quietly update other important things.

Convincing nVIDIA and ATI to shell out better Mac GPUs would be nice, too.
Why on earth would you use L3 cache when the FSB is already running 1/2 the CPU clock? All you would accomplish is added memory latency, cost and power consumption. L3 caches always run at a fraction of the CPU clock, so all you're doing is inserting an unecessary and unwanted buffer stage between memory and the L2 cache.

pjhornak

Sep 19, 2003, 02:50 PM

Received Dual 2.0 Blue 9800 CTO 208pm delivered to NJ.
Will post pics asap

illumin8

Sep 23, 2003, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by Mav451
dude did you even READ my post? I mention OCing b/c they display results for the OCed Xeon (2.4 @ 3.06) and "old" 3.06 @ 349.

2ndly, where the heck do i say that this test is inaccurate? Did you come up with that misconception by yourself?

Don't stereotype and lookdown on overclocking just because you do not understand it.

Look at my sig--it is 100% safe b/c the only issue with overclocking is too much voltage (i.e. 1.8v +, i'm not in that range), PCI bus overclock? (nope, nforce2 and all modern Intel boards lock them at 33, agp @ 66 respectively).

And actually the #1 cause of failure is heat. Most newbies do not understand that they cannot overclock with "stock" equipment. Spending 30bucks for that Swiftech or Thermalright SLK will pay HEAVY HEAVY dividends in increased stability, more headroom, and overall lower case temperatures.
Dude, chill out just a bit. I don't think most people on this board are really into overclocking because of a number of reasons.

Personally, I used to be into overclocking but then I figured out that the amount of time it takes to experiment with hardware could be better spent making money and actually buying a faster computer. I was spending hours every day trying every possible BIOS setting and voltage to get a little extra performance out of my systems. I could have spent those same hours just working some overtime and buying faster components.

Most people that buy Macs are looking for a quality computer that works right out of the box, no assembly required. At least that's what I'm looking for, and I've built dozens of PCs from parts before. I remember the "good old days" where overclocking a Celeron 300A up to 450 was as simple as changing a setting in your BIOS and now your $69 "budget" processor was faster than a $250 Pentium III-450, which was the top of the line at the time.

For most of us here, it's just not worth it to overclock. You void the warranty and risk failure of components in your system.

hombreone

Oct 12, 2003, 12:59 AM

You all need a lesson. The Amiga is the king of the hill always has been always will be due to the fact that intel is making a clone of it as is sony. The speed of mine is 10.ghz real-time and 64bit thru out the whole system not 16bit addressing like the pc and mac. Mine isnt the fastest Amiga. I think its either Cameron or Spielberg that have the fastest at the moment. Could be Nasa next. You see The Amiga can have alpha and other risc/cisc chips on the same motherboard without getting a new motherboard to "update"-funny as if you guys could really- to a better system. This means I can have the exact same system aka a A1000 to a G5. Which is what i did with my Amiga 4000.This is true ugrading. Power is making more out of a little which none of you can do unless your on an Amiga. The clone by the way is Itanium and Ps3 . The hombre clones which are amigas.

I mean my 68040 A1200 beats a dual G5 mac, because the mac has the same archane archtiecture as ibm compatibles. Hence you dont see the true power of the G5 unless its on an Amiga.

Here Endth the Lesson.:D :cool:

yamabushi

Oct 12, 2003, 02:51 AM

Yeah, while Amiga is pretty much dead right now, they still have several interesting capabilities. Apple should have snatched up Amiga for a bargain price when they had the chance six years ago(I believe the sale price was something like one million dollars). Now it's probably too late to really make a purchase worthwhile. There isn't much left for assets - some patents and a few diehard fans in Europe.

The dual G5 is very fast, and that's too slow. The Mac should beat the competition on all of the benchmak tests. IBM and Apple should jump on this opportunity to pull ahead if they can. Put the pedal to the metal. Ratchet clock speeds up to get closer to Intel and try to keep up with demand, which will be intense. I want an insanely fast Mac.

hombreone

Oct 12, 2003, 09:15 PM

the problem with that comment is a.) amiga has been dead since 1994. according to people like you who have no knowledge of what i goign on. Rember we dont have to have the Amiga name on every system for us to win .Just the companies to use our theolgy and topology or patents as you put it. This is exactly what several big comapnies are doing. Some of which I said earlier. So the some of the diehard fans as you call it are actually in the millions and are bigger then mac. Secondly, we have those big companies to continue and expand the Amiga terroity unlike mac or the wintel commnity as Intel and sony are making Amiga clones. The part about the G5 being slow, its not its the mac ,like I said before the mac doesnt show the true power.THe G5 is unlike a x86 archtiecture true 64bit and real-time. This speed far outweighs even the fastest dual x86 even with the mac.

yamabushi

Oct 12, 2003, 11:11 PM

So, are you including everyone who is using some part of the Amiga architecture as an Amiga clone? Or are you referring to all versions of the Amiga OS running on any type of hardware? You refer to running a G5 Amiga. Do you mean Amiga OS on Apple, IBM, or other hardware? Or is this just a theory?

You refer to millions of users with a popularity that exceeds the number of Mac users. Can you provide any links that would support those numbers?

I agree that Amiga can be very fast, but from the benchmarks I have seen the fastest performance was demonstrated on x86 systems using an Amiga emulator. This is becuase of a very good JIT compiler for the emulator. The emulator managed to beat all Amiga hardware based systems. I agree that the branch of Amiga that run on PowerPC could potentially be very fast on a G5. However, speed isn't everything. Things like protected memory are nice to have. AmigaOS3.9 doesn't offer as much as MacOS10.3 IMHO.

Amiga does however have enough to be of some interest, which is why I mentioned the possibilty of a purchase by Apple. The Amiga OS could then have full support on Mac hardware. The OS could either run in a window(like VirtualPC), in an Amiga mode(like Classic), or as a full boot option(OS9,OSX,Linux) and supported by Apple. Again, the financial benefit of such an option is questionable.

hombreone

Oct 14, 2003, 04:59 AM

-So, are you including everyone who is using some part of the Amiga architecture as an Amiga clone? Or are you referring to all versions of the Amiga OS running on any
type of hardware? You refer to running a G5 Amiga. Do you mean Amiga OS on Apple, IBM, or other hardware? Or is this just a theory?

First, its not some partits all of it, the real-time mutitasking.Its not Amiga with that archane archticture of the ibc or mac world.I mean would you call a yugo a Ferrai just becasue it has Ferrai painted on it ,of course not. Anotehr thin the mac nor the Ibm compatible can truly handle the Amgia os . yes , you have an emmulator or can get one ,but its no where near the speed nor does it have the other needful things that really make it the true Amiga os. A handicapped os as it would be called. Heck the Orginal G4 2.5 ghz real-time ppc only exsist on Amigas and with the moive monguls. So yes a G5 can be put on any Amiga without getting or makigna special motherboard or like wise and ALpha chip due to the great archtiecture of the Amiga. LikeI said -before the Amgia can use any CPU. Now if you use north or soutbridge its old archane adn wouldnt be considered an Amiga by Nasa or nybody in their right mind. Ask steve Jobs/Bil Gates about that.

I cant provide links saying that ,but consider holllywood Tv Stationsand alike . With the Amiga its called the silent majority. Can you give me a link for Mac beating a Pegasos or let alone an Amiga. Yet you ok maybe not you,but makes does. On the flip side Ican give you links where Mac loses to he Pegasos -even if Pegasos uses a the same a hardware ,but slower PPC.
Ye liek I said berfore the AMgai is faster still and you canfind that. jsu tlook fro yourself on Google. Plus my website which answers all the millions of users and speed Its not my opinion but facts. These statments are taken from SGI users to Gateway and Intel , IBM themselves.

-I agree that Amiga can be very fast, but from the benchmarks I have seen the fastest performance was demonstrated on x86 systems using an Amiga emulator.

You have to remeber thats from Amiga forever they dont show realbench marks. Oh yeha it takes a PIV pc to get anywhere near a Amiga1000. That is just raw power so that benchmark is off. Lets see now you cant multitask or the true 64bit like on the Amiga . SO that all has to be taken into affect. ie a 486 120mhz is faster then a 386 200mhz or more so when comparing an Amiga due to the Amiga advanced design.
When you really try to multitask you crash. In otherwards come to a compelte stop. So standing still isnt going to be as fast as an Amiga no matter how slow the slowest Amiga is. Which would be right out of the box A1000 prototype.

If you have great programs and a great os you dont need protected memory or the Amiga would crash an awful lot which in fact it is the most stable. like I said the stements about the emmlator being faster are out right lies. The orginal System(pc,mac) itelf is slower .now when it emmulates its goin to be even slower. That is a known fact . I expained up a parargraph or 2 again why that bogus statement on the emmualtor is a lie. Hell Im far from bias I admit the Amgias short commings and it has far less then the rest which is why I and millions others choose it. TO be not advertised and yet still be made clones of and recognized and used that tells about its superior technology and people wanting to use it. Mac os has more right . We made Samba and other liek it in 82 . The orginals actually work with newer pcs with xp. cant saytha tabout mac os. like i Said the mac os is half baked and Linus Trovald has said so. The Amgia os is True UNIX . Which is one of the many major reasons it can do true-real-time multitasking.
Yeah the Amiga doesnt crash as offten it has datatypes which make drivers look like **** . No reason for registry. Nope MAc os doesn even come close.

The speed is no maybe its a fact go to pegagos and see just how it beats the mac . Lets see running mac os thru linux faster then he mac os x and oh yeah running the apps faster on the amgia also. hiumm yep Amiga rocks yet again.

miga does however have enough to be of some interest, which is why I mentioned the possibilty of a purchase by Apple.

Actually I mentioned it first ,but it wouldnt happen as it was prevented by the community . For reason I wont go in here ,but suffice to say it makes the mac coummnity look like crap.

Leik I siad the hardware of the mac and the pc(ibc) is the same. So no the Aimga os would do ****ty. YOu dont understand becasue of these comments you made. You dont evne udnerstand why you have archane hardware. CPU is the best ok Itanium(PaRisc) beats it. Amiga is hardware and sofware. Not software alone,which software is all you people think of . An os makes a system wrong, both do and the hardware more so beacuse you can improve the os alot easier. Hence Amiga is Amiga because of its Superior Archtiecture and Superior OS. Amiga I cant call classic until the hombre comes out until then none can touch her. Full Boot option boy are you far behind we have been able to boot win,linux,mac os and Amiga os at the exact time in real-time fro ages. Its like dam I didnt realize we could do this oh yeah its Amiga we can. Hence the Slogan: Only Amiga makes it possible. -The classic ones as you call them.

Which you cant you have to boot one or the other then go not the other. Or at worst boot the other os instead.

Ok are os looks dated but we can improve it many ways (skins),and we use the vastly superior RGB True RGB not VGA to RGB or jsut plain RGB. Then you say its not the standard well tell that to millions of Tv users. Secondly if it wasnt the standard why try to emmualte it. I do mean try.

The Amiga is the standard from miltary design and making to the systems running miltiary ships. Plus interfacing with Hanger 18 stuff. The particular true standard is what this world is run on and why intel and sony are the first to go towards the light.-The Amiga.
i appreciate tis discssion .
AE system is truly modular liek I eplained before hence nonbias ,we have slow raw power cpu. But endusers just get on the net and alike, and for that no matter how fast you get, ok light speed will beat us%), youll be slower.

When a person wants to render faster he just adds another cpu. Without changing the motherboard, again superor technology. Hence the term renederign farm .

Several of these things I metioned earlier and Im reapeating. I have said the facts, and I really dont care what the next true Amiga is called(same topology and theology)design and archtiecture outlook. All I know One is going to be called the PS3 the other the Mckinly(Intel) the first out will be ahead. Like I said before check the whicte spec(sheet) on both compared to the hombre and they are the same,well PS3 might use the G6/G5 or the Itanium who knows. even mac has plans to copy it ,but it had to wait for what has happaned, mainly the demise of commodore. So we might have a third if mac last long enough. Which I do hope they do, more competion. Hum cheaper prices .

thanks fro the fun I do hate repeating myself and correcting arrors over and over again so email me for my phone number, or I will call you when you give it to me via email.
This discussion has sparked knowledge for you and others who would like to know,and I appreciate it.
Thanks
HombreOne:D :cool:

ffakr

Oct 14, 2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by hombreone

HombreOne:D :cool:

why are people actually arguing with this crank?

A new P4 can't keep up with the Amiga OS running on an Amiga 1000 (7MHz 68000)?
You can plug any processor into an Amiga?
You can run Amiga OS on Itanium (_not_even_close_ to any instruction set that AmigaOS runs on)?

sheesh. It's not even a good troll... just ignore him.

BTW, I think this is the web site he was referring to earlier...

HombreOne's Amiga Lust Site (http://timecube.com)

markeleven

Oct 14, 2003, 09:59 PM

Genie

Oct 14, 2003, 10:36 PM

http://www.geniesongs.com/genie/endorsements/apple/Genie-G5Computer50pix.jpg (http://www.geniesongs.com/genie/endorsements/apple/g5opening/index.htm)
It runs really fast.

The only real problems I've had involve switching out the combo drive for a DVR-106D. I'm hoping all that gets resolved with 10.3.

hombreone

Jul 31, 2005, 10:50 PM

why are people actually arguing with this crank?

A new P4 can't keep up with the Amiga OS running on an Amiga 1000 (7MHz 68000)?
You can plug any processor into an Amiga?
You can run Amiga OS on Itanium (_not_even_close_ to any instruction set that AmigaOS runs on)?

sheesh. It's not even a good troll... just ignore him.

BTW, I think this is the web site he was referring to earlier...

HombreOne's Amiga Lust Site (http://timecube.com)

I warned you before that Intel would take over mac .it has. Wrong I can run the Itanium on the Amiga -its Parisc it has been done. Plus the os that the Itanium runs on is based on the amiga os 3.9.2. oh by the way the itanium is a hombre clone exact same archtiture uses rgb zorro(pcexpress) and ahi no crappy creative.

Ah a jealous no nothing person that wishes his archane system was better -nah its dead - your site www.loserville.com :cool:

hombreone

Jul 31, 2005, 10:52 PM

A friend of mine has a dual G5. He was editing a video in Avid dv pro, while capturing clips in DV for another project in FCP 4 while listening to internet radio and sending an occasional email. Nothing slowed down, or crashed....

bull on the slowed down part it may not have crashed then but it will. Its inherenet of the archtiecture -x86

zakatov

Jul 31, 2005, 10:56 PM

Holy thread resurrection batman! Let it RIP please

barneygumble

Aug 1, 2005, 01:39 AM

wow this guy remembers everything

ffakr

Aug 1, 2005, 08:54 AM

hombreone

Aug 20, 2005, 01:18 PM

I think he's posting otherwhere as optimaloptimussupreme
I found a post by optimaloptimussupreme at Linux Format on the same topic and it's just as inane and silly as these posts.

Just a few things.. :)
-First, most people would say that you would run the Amiga OS on the Itanium Architecture, not that you RUN a processor or an ISA Architecture on an OS.
-I've looked up Parisc and it appears to be a Linux distro. Linux with the Amiga window manager (which I thought sucked when I played with it)
-Here's a great post by the guy who I think may be this guy's alter-ego.
http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2222&st=0&#entry18441
He is rambling all kinds of insanity.. like how the Amiga is asymmetric and doesn't use a hardware clock (he doesn't seem to get how assymetric hardware is supposed to work).. and he thinks NASA uses Amigas. hehe
-And this one is the best. Hombre ISN'T and ITANIUM port of AmigaOS dumbass. Don't believe me? How about hearing it from a PhD who worked on the Hombre project at Commodore?
http://www.templeoftech.com/viewarticlepage.cka?articleid=26&pageid=2
Dr. Hepler: Hombre had an integer PA-RISC core on board to act as the system processor in the low-end mode or as a peripheral processor in the high-end mode.
Get that? It ran a PA RISC core as the system processor normally but would use that cpu as a specialty processor in special modes. The other cpu was not ITANIUM either. It was something custom built off 68K.
Dumbass.
Oh, and btw.. according to the guy who helped design Hombre, it was supposed to come out in 1995 when Itanium was still being designed ON PAPER.

Amiga people are funny. They just can't accept that their architecture is DEAD.
They are the flat-earthers of computing.
hahaha

hum here is a quote form the history of amiga heck type it in Hombre:
The choice of the Hombre is a confusing one to an audience so used to the idea of the Amiga moving towards PowerPC. Rather than a clean break with a new CPU, Commodore chose to produce Hombre as a chipset with a PA-RISC core.
not used at nasa again he is wrong:
Gary Jones, the principle systems engineer for NASA's software systems at Cape Canaveral told us the Amigas take in all the telemetry data from the spacecraft, scale it by applying coefficients up to fifth order polynomials and convert the data back to engineering units for display to the engineers working the launch.

Gary went on to tell us that their first choice was the Macintosh, but as it was a closed system, Apple wouldn't give NASA enough information to get into it at the level that was needed. Talk about blowing a marketing opportunity!

He continued "We then looked at the PC, but the hardware architecture was really as bad then as it is now. So Hal was the first one who brought out one of the Amiga 1000's and we played with it."
"It just turned out that it was a good machine. The things that make a machine good for playing games tend to make it good for processing and displaying data. Because you've got some of the same problems. You need an operating system that very efficient, very fast and the Amiga has that and has got very little overhead. That's what makes it nice; we don't load down the system running the overhead we can just process the data."

"Most of our customizing is hardware customizing. The Amiga operating system is flexible enough we have to drop into assembly only once in a while to initialize some of the special boards we use, but otherwise the operating system is fine we don't do anything unusual with it. We use it just like it is and build hardware for our interfacing requirements because we have to pull the data out of the data bus in this building and put the data back in."

Seven Amigas are online assigned to operational support, six are dedicated to routing data to remote space centers and another six are reserved for hardware and software development.

The spacecraft supported by the Amigas include; all of the Atlas-Centaurs, Delta II and Delta III, the Orbital Sciences Pegasus, Lockheed-Martin Athena, a couple different models of the Titan, GOES and GPS spacecraft data and some user data off the space shuttle.

Because of way the Amiga is laid out and because the software is all tied together, if the bit rate isn't too high, they can actually support more than one spacecraft at a time in the same Amiga. A multi-tasking, multi-spacecraft personal computer!
Gary Jones; "If its not a PC, NASA gives us a lot of grief when we try to buy anything to go with the Amigas. They want us to buy Macs or PC's and run Windows 98 and NT(XP,2003), not to mention linux or bsd. We keep trying to tell them those platfofrms arent fast enough or stable enough so they tell us to buy DEC Alphas. We tell them its too expensive and not as powerful. They don't like the Amiga, it doesn't cost enough." They are starting to see the light now that they see Intel making clones of the Amiga.
there much more but accoridng to him they arent there. I call them every now and then like last week to upodate the info. I was physicaly there due to my work with the navy as they are training nasa astronauts. On flip, vnav and other courses. Oh yeha hell say thats not true becaue he doesnt udnerstand it orsome other immature thing.

Look up Intel again with there history youll fnd that intel bought out amiga chipsets to make the itanium which is identical to the Hombre, Pciexpress, and all ie useing ahi -sound not crappy creative and rgb not inferior vga.

Also youll find that redhat and suse used amgia os as the base of the new os for itanium. Thereby going true Unix. Going back to unix and amiga as it was intened and invented on . yes linux inveted on a amiga 3000. By the way look that in Linux mag called Linux user about 4 -6 months ago.

He claims to know archtecture x86 was invented as erly as 1947. Asymetirc archtieture 1982 hum whos behind now. Secondly, Amiga now Hombre is compared to humas as its the same archtiecture as the human cell. I do know he doesnt as he didnt know what i was comparing it to.

funny how fools resort to such immature tactics. The facts are as they are . It happend . His in the linux room and yet he claims mac os isnt linux then what is he doing there. Frankly he doesnt know jack hence the name calling as last resort. All you have to is look on the net ask Nasa and hollywood all of which use the Amiga or Hombre as it is called now hence my name. ;)

HERE ENDTH THE LESSON
meaning not going to reply to a fool that doesnt knwo jack

to the othere guy if you dont rember the past you are condemed to repeat it
bellbottoms and all%^) :cool:

hyperpasta

Aug 20, 2005, 02:46 PM

Now that the G5 is at 2.7GHz, all models are dual, and we're going Intel! Shows how much this stuff changes. We now have flash iPods, color iPods, sub $500 headless Macs, a G5 at 2.0GHz in an iMac, and our latest addition, the four-button Apple mouse! Woo-hoo!

DakotaGuy

Aug 20, 2005, 08:51 PM

Looks like we may finally kick some tail! Here's to progress, folks, and IBM!

You mean...No thanks IBM! How things can change in a couple of years. Of course that was a couple of years ago, now about anything Intel makes can kick the G5's butt.

solvs

Aug 21, 2005, 02:49 AM

You mean...No thanks IBM! How things can change in a couple of years. Of course that was a couple of years ago, now about anything Intel makes can kick the G5's butt.
Actually, at this point the G5 is still on par. Though AMD is making some great strides. It's what Intel is coming out with next that's impressive, and IBM not so much. We had faith in you Big Blue, but you let us down. Go Intel, I guess. :(

BGil

Aug 21, 2005, 03:18 AM

Actually, at this point the G5 is still on par. Though AMD is making some great strides. It's what Intel is coming out with next that's impressive, and IBM not so much. We had faith in you Big Blue, but you let us down. Go Intel, I guess. :(

I look at those triple-core 3.2ghz Xbox 360 procs and just dream of what could be if Apple didn't (allegedly) play such games.

solvs

Aug 21, 2005, 06:18 AM

I look at those triple-core 3.2ghz Xbox 360 procs and just dream of what could be if Apple didn't (allegedly) play such games.
You know those aren't regular CPUs right? Great for gaming, not so much for computers. Besides, I doubt it was about games (no pun intended). It was more than likely about $$$.

ffakr

Aug 21, 2005, 12:48 PM

hum here is a quote form the history of amiga heck type it in Hombre:
The choice of the Hombre is a confusing one to an audience so used to the idea of the Amiga moving towards PowerPC. Rather than a clean break with a new CPU, Commodore chose to produce Hombre as a chipset with a PA-RISC core.

Wow, that's what I freaking said. Way to shoot me down

not used at nasa again he is wrong:
Gary Jones, the principle systems engineer for NASA's software systems at Cape Canaveral told us the Amigas take in all the telemetry data from the spacecraft, scale it by applying coefficients up to fifth order polynomials and convert the data back to engineering units for display to the engineers working the launch.
....Gary went on to tell us that their first choice was the Macintosh, but as it was a closed system, Apple wouldn't give NASA enough information to get into it at the level that was needed. Talk about blowing a marketing opportunity!
<snip> Seven Amigas are online assigned to operational support, six are dedicated to routing data to remote space centers and another six are reserved for hardware and software development.
... The spacecraft supported by the Amigas include; all of the Atlas-Centaurs, Delta II and Delta III, the Orbital Sciences Pegasus, Lockheed-Martin Athena, a couple different models of the Titan, GOES and GPS spacecraft data and some user data off the space shuttle.

Because of way the Amiga is laid out and because the software is all tied together, if the bit rate isn't too high, they can actually support more than one spacecraft at a time in the same Amiga. A multi-tasking, multi-spacecraft personal computer!
Hehe. So, you back up the assertion that NASA is rife with Amiga's by pointing out thta they have 13 of them. 13. You know how many systems NASA is running? I work at a University and my Division has 2 Apple IIes running spectrometers. Hell, I've got a 386 in the office that we had to desolder a NiCad from the motherboard and resolder a new one to get it up and running. It also performs a very specialized task running equipment. Should you assume that my University (not even my Division) is an Apple IIe shop? or that our primary computers are 386 class? What a crock.

Gary Jones; "If its not a PC, NASA gives us a lot of grief when we try to buy anything to go with the Amigas. They want us to buy Macs or PC's and run Windows 98 and NT(XP,2003), not to mention linux or bsd. We keep trying to tell them those platfofrms arent fast enough or stable enough so they tell us to buy DEC Alphas. We tell them its too expensive and not as powerful. They don't like the Amiga, it doesn't cost enough." They are starting to see the light now that they see Intel making clones of the Amiga.
I only include this because it reinforces a question I had about your earlier post. How old is this quote? You didn't provide the original link as I did in my posts. If it's 100% accurate, it may be as new as 2003. However, it specifically mentions that NASA wants them to run Windows 98. Why would NASA want them to run Win98 today? We actively discourage people from running 98. Also, Why would NASA want them to buy DEC Alphas? DEC DOESN'T OWN THE ALPHA ANYMORE AND HASN'T FOR A COUPLE YEARS! HP OWNS THE ALPHA AND THEY'VE KILLED IT OFF.
So, to bolster your claim that NASA as Amiga's all over the place, you point out 13 of them that were running maybe 2 years ago. Wow. Oh, just for comparison, One division at my Private University (Physical Sciences) has over 1500 compute nodes in it according to our first attempt at an inventory. I'd assume all of NASA has well over 10,000 computers (not counting the massive clusters) and you found 13 Amigas. Wow.
Look up Intel again with there history youll fnd that intel bought out amiga chipsets to make the itanium which is identical to the Hombre, Pciexpress, and all ie useing ahi -sound not crappy creative and rgb not inferior vga.
Um.. I think you'll find your Amiga History is full of crap.
As I said before, the Itanium is a VLIW ISA. It's also a Processor, not a chipset so how does one make a chipset into a processor. Your claim that Intel (and HP) bought an Amiga chipset designed to run a RISC processor to act as the basis of their VLIW Processor is so stupid I can't believe I'm even arguing about it. It's like claiming that the voltage regulator on an electric motor was bought out so that another company could base their rotary combustion engine on it.

Also youll find that redhat and suse used amgia os as the base of the new os for itanium. Thereby going true Unix. Going back to unix and amiga as it was intened and invented on . yes linux inveted on a amiga 3000. By the way look that in Linux mag called Linux user about 4 -6 months ago.

No, you're either stupid or lying again. Linus Torvalds wrote Linux because he couldn't get access to or afford a real Unix box. He wrote it on an x86 processor.. on a PC.
You also don't appear to know the history of Unix either but that's too much to go into now.

He claims to know archtecture x86 was invented as erly as 1947. Asymetirc archtieture 1982 hum whos behind now. Secondly, Amiga now Hombre is compared to humas as its the same archtiecture as the human cell. I do know he doesnt as he didnt know what i was comparing it to.

OK, I'll agree with you here. The x86 architecture was retrived from the Roswell space craft in 1947. The Aliens brought x86 technology to earth and a government mole gave it to Intel. Bwahahaha. BTW, what part of the Amiga Architecture takes the role of the Mitochondria in the Human Cell?

funny how fools resort to such immature tactics. The facts are as they are . It happend . His in the linux room and yet he claims mac os isnt linux then what is he doing there. Frankly he doesnt know jack hence the name calling as last resort. All you have to is look on the net ask Nasa and hollywood all of which use the Amiga or Hombre as it is called now hence my name. ;)
HERE ENDTH THE LESSON
meaning not going to reply to a fool that doesnt knwo jack

Wow, I've never seen someone so nuts who can type that much in one pass. I am impressed.

I can't believe that I could be so stupid as to claim that the MacOS isn't linux (Linux being the GNU project with the Linux kernel at the heart) JUST because it doesn't have a Linux kernel. Yes, Just because the Mac OS X has a BSD/Mach kernel INSTEAD of a Linux kernel I was so foolish as to think it's not linux.

Man, get off the extra-terrestrial and the conspiracy theory web sites and look at the real history from the people who wrote and designed these systems.