Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > PowerPC Macs

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Apr 19, 2012, 04:38 PM   #1
sk8er123
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Why so slow??

Ok I have a question: why does a Powermac Quad Core 2.5 GHz get a benchmark score of 3284 and a 2011 Macbook Pro gets 5900. Shouldn't the powermac get higher since it is QUAD core not dual like the macbook AND 2.5 ghz not 2.3 like the macbook. Also I plan on getting a quad powermac, how high do you think I can get the xbench score by maxing out as much as I can? Thanks
sk8er123 is offline   -4 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 19, 2012, 05:06 PM   #2
thorns
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Because the G5 CPU and periphery is from '05/'06 and the Intel stuff is ca. 6 months old. Look up Moore's Law.
__________________
Powermac G5 Late 2005, DC 2,0, 10GB DDR2, X1900, 2,5TB, 10.5.8
thorns is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 19, 2012, 05:48 PM   #3
tayloralmond
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Missouri, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by sk8er123 View Post
Ok I have a question: why does a Powermac Quad Core 2.5 GHz get a benchmark score of 3284 and a 2011 Macbook Pro gets 5900. Shouldn't the powermac get higher since it is QUAD core not dual like the macbook AND 2.5 ghz not 2.3 like the macbook. Also I plan on getting a quad powermac, how high do you think I can get the xbench score by maxing out as much as I can? Thanks
I generally get around 3700 on my Quad in 64bit mode on GeekBench. It's unlikely you'll ever get much higher than that. For the averages, go check out GeekBench's website and they show average benchmark scores for each specific model. 3284 is a pretty average score in 32bit mode. If you want to raise your score, make sure you have all other programs closed when you run the test, then just let the computer sit for a couple minutes and I bet you'll get a higher score.

EDIT: I misread your post. I thought you ran the test. Whoops lol.
__________________
Mac Pro: 1.86GHz (8 Core), 17GB RAM, Radeon 5770
PowerMac G5 Quad: 16GB RAM PowerMac G4: 2x1.5GHz PowerBook G4 12": 1.5GHz
iMac G3: 600MHz iBook G3: 466MHz
The Blog I Work At: MyMacCollection
tayloralmond is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 19, 2012, 10:01 PM   #4
macdatadrive
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: The city of Macintosh :)
I wouldn't worry about it too much - my white unibody C2D Macbook (late '09) only comes in at 3148.
So the PMG5 is faster than this.
macdatadrive is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 21, 2012, 06:07 AM   #5
KurtangleTN
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
The Core i series has been a breakthrough for Intel. While since the original C2D there have been incremental upgrades this was a true breakthrough.

To put it in perspective the cheapest MBA at $999 will outbench ANY PPC Mac ever made, every Macbook (regular) ever made, every Macbook Pro prior to 2010, every Mac mini prior to the recent model, every iMac as recent as late as 2009 (only the highest end 2009 27" beats it out too), and most shockingly the original Mac Pro in any configuration, including the Quad 3.00ghz Xeon that was king until 2008.

That also means the $600 Mac Mini will outbench all of those computers as well.

Of course this just tests CPU.. no graphical performance, no hard drive performance.. etc.

Still, it's pretty amazing to think. I remember a post just 3-4 years ago asking if the original Mac Pro would still be a beast in 10 years.. although I knew technology would catch up to it. I didn't think in less than half that time we'd have our lowest end computers outbenching it.
KurtangleTN is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 11:36 PM   #6
barkmonster
macrumors 68000
 
barkmonster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Lancashire
You 'd be better off picking up a used Intel Mac Mini from 2009 than a G5. An even earlier model with a Core 2 duo might suit you depending on your needs too and that's even cheaper still.

I'm still on a G4 at present but the used prices mean I can get a system that runs Lion, handles dual screens, can be upgraded to 8Gb for peanuts, doesn't consume much in the way of watts, supports SATA 2 drives at full speed (handy for SSDs) and isn't obsolete.

For comparison:-

8Gb Crucial RAM

Quad G5: 91.18 VS (2009) Mac Mini: 34.79

Used prices (based on eBay completed listing search)

Quad G5: 300 VS (2009) Mac Mini: 320

Also the G5 is liquid cooled and only offers 1 internal drive bay in addition to the system drive so either way, you'd have to go the external route to add any kind of backup such as a NAS drive etc...
barkmonster is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2012, 01:30 AM   #7
burnout8488
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Endwell, NY
You have a lot to learn, grasshopper.
__________________
Intel: iMac 4,1 (Flashed to 5,1), 2012 MBA 13" Base
PPC: iMac G4 700
iOS: iPhone 5C 16GB Sprint / iPad 2 - 16GB Verizon
burnout8488 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2012, 01:47 AM   #8
throAU
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by KurtangleTN View Post
The Core i series has been a breakthrough for Intel. While since the original C2D there have been incremental upgrades this was a true breakthrough.
Yup. Whilst the core 2 was a breakthrough for power consumption, the core I series are again a quantum leap ahead of the core 2.

Even a core i3 dual core is faster at many things than a core 2 quad of similar clock speed - and the core 2 wasn't ever a slow CPU in its day (which was after the g5 from memory)

CPU architecture moves on. The g5 may be quad core, but those cores are very old and don't have a lot of instructions in hardware to speed up common tasks.
__________________
MBP (early 2011) - Core i7 2720 2.2ghz, Hires Glossy, 16GB, Seagate Momentus XT 750GB
Mac Mini (mid 2007) - Core2 Duo 1.8, 2gb, 320gb 7200 rpm
iPhone 4S, iPad 4, iPad Mini, HTC One (eval)
throAU is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2012, 04:14 AM   #9
Jethryn Freyman
macrumors 68020
 
Jethryn Freyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Keep in mind that it's not all about processor speed... for example, even if the MBA can beat a Mac Pro in some CPU tests, its' graphics power is nowhere near the same level. Nor is upgradability, RAM capacity, etc.
__________________
Emergency Cheesegrater - 2x 1.8 G5 - 4GB - OWC SSD - ATI Fire GL X3 256MB - 10.5.8
Jethryn Freyman is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2012, 11:57 PM   #10
KurtangleTN
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by throAU View Post
Yup. Whilst the core 2 was a breakthrough for power consumption, the core I series are again a quantum leap ahead of the core 2.

Even a core i3 dual core is faster at many things than a core 2 quad of similar clock speed - and the core 2 wasn't ever a slow CPU in its day (which was after the g5 from memory)

CPU architecture moves on. The g5 may be quad core, but those cores are very old and don't have a lot of instructions in hardware to speed up common tasks.
The Core Duo series was also a big breakthrough in performance too. It blew away the P4s and the M series that it replaced. On the Apple side it was of course huge too. Every single model received a massive upgrade in CPU performance. The G4s were so long in the tooth by the end there.
KurtangleTN is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2012, 06:28 AM   #11
sk8er123
Thread Starter
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Thanks

Thank you for all of the replies. They were very helpful. I understand now that it is not just the speed of the processor. THANKS
sk8er123 is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > PowerPC Macs

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:17 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC