Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Archive > Archives of Old Posts > MacRumors News Discussion (archive)

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Aug 15, 2006, 11:34 AM   #1
FF_productions
macrumors 68030
 
FF_productions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mt. Prospect, Illinois
Send a message via AIM to FF_productions Send a message via Skype™ to FF_productions
Barefeats has posted the 3 ghz Mac Pro benchmarks!!

Check it out!

http://barefeats.com/quad06.html


The 3 ghz Mac Pro is neck and neck with the G5 Quad in the Adobe benchmarks, sick considering the fact it's running under rosetta!!
__________________
Home: Mac Pro, Quad 2.66
Work: Mac Pro, 12 Core
FF_productions is offline   0
Old Aug 15, 2006, 11:39 AM   #2
Chaszmyr
macrumors 601
 
Chaszmyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
That photoshop test is insane!
Chaszmyr is offline   0
Old Aug 15, 2006, 11:39 AM   #3
iGary
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Randy's House
I would have thought that the Final Cut Pro benchmark would have really blown away the G5 - not so much, right?

Awesome on FileMaker and I can't wait to see how this stuff runs Adobe PS Natively.
iGary is offline   0
Old Aug 15, 2006, 11:42 AM   #4
MovieCutter
Banned
 
MovieCutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Still waiting for game benchmarks...
MovieCutter is offline   0
Old Aug 15, 2006, 11:51 AM   #5
Felldownthewell
macrumors 65816
 
Felldownthewell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Portland
Amazing.

However the FCP benchmark is disapointing, but I suppose that it may rise when the x1900 is installed and tested. Still, that photoshop test? I don't think ANYONE expected results that good from a non-UB program. At least I didn't...
__________________
"Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison"
-Henry David Thoreau
Felldownthewell is offline   0
Old Aug 15, 2006, 11:52 AM   #6
MovieCutter
Banned
 
MovieCutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felldownthewell
Amazing.

However the FCP benchmark is disapointing, but I suppose that it may rise when the x1900 is installed and tested. Still, that photoshop test? I don't think ANYONE expected results that good from a non-UB program. At least I didn't...
I did...

DIE POWER PC...DIE!!!
MovieCutter is offline   0
Old Aug 15, 2006, 11:54 AM   #7
cjkihlbom
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
I'm so glad I ordered the 3 Ghz, almost as fast as the Quad G5 in Photoshop is insane!
cjkihlbom is offline   0
Old Aug 15, 2006, 12:05 PM   #8
Xeem
macrumors 6502a
 
Xeem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Minnesota
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieCutter
Still waiting for game benchmarks...
Ditto. Sometimes a system's true colors don't show until you've benchmarked modern games on it.
__________________
XBox Live, DotA, LoL Gamertag: Xeem
Xeem is offline   0
Old Aug 15, 2006, 12:18 PM   #9
mmmcheese
macrumors 6502a
 
mmmcheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieCutter
I did...

DIE POWER PC...DIE!!!
(sideshow bob)The Power PC...The!!!(/sideshow bob)
mmmcheese is offline   0
Old Aug 15, 2006, 12:19 PM   #10
CyberPrey
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: IGH, MN
Show.. me.. the.. games...

LOL, us gamers all sound kinda like broken records
__________________
Mac Pro 1,1 - 2x2.66ghz, 8gb RAM, 2x250gb HD, 2x2tb HD, PowerColor HD5770
CyberPrey is offline   0
Old Aug 15, 2006, 12:30 PM   #11
ricgnzlzcr
macrumors 6502a
 
ricgnzlzcr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Wow, I'm really surprised by those photoshop tests. When those go universal I'm sure my jaw will drop
ricgnzlzcr is offline   0
Old Aug 15, 2006, 12:58 PM   #12
Danksi
macrumors 68000
 
Danksi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Nelson, BC. Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felldownthewell
Amazing.

However the FCP benchmark is disapointing, but I suppose that it may rise when the x1900 is installed and tested. Still, that photoshop test? I don't think ANYONE expected results that good from a non-UB program. At least I didn't...
My main interest is in FCP the FCP results.

On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?
__________________
Kootenay Mountain Biking
Danksi is offline   0
Old Aug 15, 2006, 01:00 PM   #13
Chaszmyr
macrumors 601
 
Chaszmyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGary
I would have thought that the Final Cut Pro benchmark would have really blown away the G5 - not so much, right?
I couldn't say for sure, but I would guess that the current version of FCP was carefully optimized for the G5, and has not yet undergone the same treatment for Intel chips.
Chaszmyr is offline   0
Old Aug 15, 2006, 01:03 PM   #14
bep207
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
has adobe dropped any hints as to when CS3 will be available
bep207 is offline   0
Old Aug 15, 2006, 01:04 PM   #15
FF_productions
Thread Starter
macrumors 68030
 
FF_productions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mt. Prospect, Illinois
Send a message via AIM to FF_productions Send a message via Skype™ to FF_productions
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danksi
My main interest is in FCP the FCP results.

On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?
Video cards won't make a difference in FCP as of now if that's what you are asking performance wise. If you are using Motion/Games, anything that really feeds off the video card, then I'd go for the higher end video card.

Otherwise I'd go for the 2.6 ghz.
__________________
Home: Mac Pro, Quad 2.66
Work: Mac Pro, 12 Core
FF_productions is offline   0
Old Aug 15, 2006, 01:04 PM   #16
WildCowboy
Administrator/Editor
 
WildCowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by bep207
has adobe dropped any hints as to when CS3 will be available
In March they were saying the second quarter of next year.
__________________
Editor in Chief, MacRumors
WildCowboy is offline   0
Old Aug 15, 2006, 01:04 PM   #17
FF_productions
Thread Starter
macrumors 68030
 
FF_productions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mt. Prospect, Illinois
Send a message via AIM to FF_productions Send a message via Skype™ to FF_productions
Quote:
Originally Posted by bep207
has adobe dropped any hints as to when CS3 will be available
2nd quarter of 2007 is what I'm hearing.

Beat me to it.
__________________
Home: Mac Pro, Quad 2.66
Work: Mac Pro, 12 Core
FF_productions is offline   0
Old Aug 15, 2006, 01:11 PM   #18
darh
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by FF_productions
Video cards won't make a difference in FCP as of now if that's what you are asking performance wise. If you are using Motion/Games, anything that really feeds off the video card, then I'd go for the higher end video card.

Otherwise I'd go for the 2.6 ghz.
Couldn't it be the harddrive that is the limiting factor in this bnechmark?
__________________
www.jasperbel.nl
darh is offline   0
Old Aug 15, 2006, 01:12 PM   #19
QCassidy352
macrumors G3
 
QCassidy352's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: San Francisco
oh WOW. Considering that a single 1.67 G4 beats a dual 2.0 core duo in photoshop when the core duo has to use rosetta, the fact that the xeon is nearly even is amazing. That thing is going to be amazing when CS3 comes out!
__________________
"If Jesus Himself came back to earth and turned water to wine, half of MacRumors would say 'meh, this is red. I wanted white.'"
QCassidy352 is offline   0
Old Aug 15, 2006, 01:13 PM   #20
FF_productions
Thread Starter
macrumors 68030
 
FF_productions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mt. Prospect, Illinois
Send a message via AIM to FF_productions Send a message via Skype™ to FF_productions
Quote:
Originally Posted by darh
Couldn't it be the harddrive that is the limiting factor in this bnechmark?
When rendering in FCP, it's all about the CPU.

Fast hard drives contribute to real-time effects, but do NOT contribute to rendering.

Ram helps a little bit.
__________________
Home: Mac Pro, Quad 2.66
Work: Mac Pro, 12 Core
FF_productions is offline   0
Old Aug 15, 2006, 01:16 PM   #21
Danksi
macrumors 68000
 
Danksi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Nelson, BC. Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by FF_productions
Video cards won't make a difference in FCP as of now if that's what you are asking performance wise. If you are using Motion/Games, anything that really feeds off the video card, then I'd go for the higher end video card.

Otherwise I'd go for the 2.6 ghz.
I've not really used Motion yet, just the other apps within FC-Studio.

Just been comparing their iMac 1.9 G5 results with those of the 2.66Ghz Mac Pro numbers... I don't think I'll be disappointed in the performance boost!

I guess my main concern is whether or not Apple integrates the individual Final Cut Studio applications more closely, so all of a sudden you'd need a better graphics card to comfortably run the 'editor', rather than just Motion as is the case at the moment.

I think I'll stick to the 2.66Ghz and standard graphics card, as FCP and compressor are more CPU intensive I believe.
__________________
Kootenay Mountain Biking
Danksi is offline   0
Old Aug 15, 2006, 01:18 PM   #22
FF_productions
Thread Starter
macrumors 68030
 
FF_productions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mt. Prospect, Illinois
Send a message via AIM to FF_productions Send a message via Skype™ to FF_productions
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danksi
I think I'll stick to the 2.66Ghz and standard graphics card, as FCP and compressor are more CPU intensive I believe.
Premiere Pro, for an example, is starting to use GPU-accelerated effects, I think it's a trend that will soon be coming over to FCP.

I'd get the 2.6 ghz, then add another graphics card in the future if the current one doesn't suffice.
__________________
Home: Mac Pro, Quad 2.66
Work: Mac Pro, 12 Core
FF_productions is offline   0
Old Aug 15, 2006, 01:20 PM   #23
Danksi
macrumors 68000
 
Danksi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Nelson, BC. Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by FF_productions
Premiere Pro, for an example, is starting to use GPU-accelerated effects, I think it's a trend that will soon be coming over to FCP.

I'd get the 2.6 ghz, then add another graphics card in the future if the current one doesn't suffice.
Good to know. Thanks.
__________________
Kootenay Mountain Biking
Danksi is offline   0
Old Aug 15, 2006, 04:49 PM   #24
NATO
macrumors 68000
 
NATO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Northern Ireland
Interesting results, definitely makes me want to rob the local bank to buy a 3.0GHz Mac Pro

Spotted something amusing when browsing the barefeats page, an ad for the Apple store advertising 'The New Power Mac G5 Quad - Shop Now' ... Not so new now
__________________
Genius is perseverance in disguise
NATO is offline   0
Old Aug 15, 2006, 05:11 PM   #25
Some_Big_Spoon
macrumors 6502a
 
Some_Big_Spoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: New York, NY
Send a message via AIM to Some_Big_Spoon
Well, we all knew that the G5 isn't a "bad" chip necessarily.. It's older tech, and I think, wasn't really meant for this kind of work (non-server applications).

Preaching to the choir am I?

Quote:
Originally Posted by iGary
I would have thought that the Final Cut Pro benchmark would have really blown away the G5 - not so much, right?

Awesome on FileMaker and I can't wait to see how this stuff runs Adobe PS Natively.
__________________
Celebrating 10 years as a MacRumors member.
Some_Big_Spoon is offline   0


 
MacRumors Forums > Archive > Archives of Old Posts > MacRumors News Discussion (archive)

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:23 AM.

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

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