Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Archive > Archives of Old Posts > MacBytes.com News Discussion

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 21, 2003, 11:22 AM   #1
MacBytes
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Dual 1.8Ghz PowerMac G5 performance results are now reported...


Category: Benchmarks
Link: Dual 1.8Ghz PowerMac G5 performance results are now reported at Apple.com

Posted on MacBytes.com

Approved by arn
MacBytes is offline   0
Old Nov 21, 2003, 12:15 PM   #2
nickmcghie
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UCLA
It's interesting how they show the Alienware machine with the Athlon 64 processor as slower than even the baseline single processor Pentium 4 system. It looks like they want to show that 64-bit on the PC side isn't really ready or even comparable to the true 64-bit power of the G5.
nickmcghie is offline   0
Old Nov 21, 2003, 12:19 PM   #3
1macker1
Banned
 
1macker1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: A Higher Level
Do you really trust the outcome of the test. This is the apple site. You dont think they would show the test where the G5 got it's a** handed to it. Take the results with a grain of salt.
Quote:
Originally posted by nickmcghie
It's interesting how they show the Alienware machine with the Athlon 64 processor as slower than even the baseline single processor Pentium 4 system. It looks like they want to show that 64-bit on the PC side isn't really ready or even comparable to the true 64-bit power of the G5.
1macker1 is offline   0
Old Nov 21, 2003, 12:22 PM   #4
nickmcghie
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UCLA
Quote:
Originally posted by 1macker1
Do you really trust the outcome of the test. This is the apple site. You dont think they would show the test where the G5 got it's a** handed to it. Take the results with a grain of salt.
I never said I really trusted the results. I just pointed out something that I thought was interesting.
nickmcghie is offline   0
Old Nov 21, 2003, 03:32 PM   #5
Longey Nowze
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
I was surprised at first to see that for the first two test they used a 2.8GHz dual xeon set up, while in the other tests they used a 3.2GHz dual xeon set up... then I read the fine print...

Quote:
2. All Power Mac G5 systems were tested using Final Cut Pro 4.1 and a single Xserve RAID configured with 512MB of RAM per controller, 14 drives and RAID 50. The HP XW8000 (Avidís recommended PC platform) is listed for comparison. PC results stated on Avid.com.


3. All Power Mac G5 systems were tested using Final Cut Pro 4.1.The HP XW8000 (Avidís recommended PC platform) was tested using Avid Media Composer Adrenaline 1.03.80. All systems were tested using the internal disk subsystem.
apparently that system is recommended by Avid, I would still like to see the the results with the 3.2GHz Xeons, I think they would be faster, but that is expected, doesn't that CPU use the 800MHz system bus? and it has more cache? and the other more obvious thing is that they 3.2GHz Xeons are 1.2GHz faster than the 2GHz G5.

I also would like to see the prices of the other systems compared to the G5s, I'm to lazy to do this now, does anyone feel like going to hp.com, dell.com and alienware.com and check out the systems?

THANK YOU
MaT

edit: spelling

Last edited by Longey Nowze; Nov 21, 2003 at 03:35 PM.
Longey Nowze is offline   0
Old Nov 21, 2003, 04:55 PM   #6
Nermal
Moderator
 
Nermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Whakatane, New Zealand
I see that they haven't posted the CTP ("Composite Theoretical Performance - measurement of a computer's processing speed in MTOPS, Millions of Theoretical Operations Per Second") on their site yet. I don't really understand what the CTP means, but I guess it'd be useful for doing comparisons.
Nermal is online now   0
Old Nov 21, 2003, 06:21 PM   #7
bryanc
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fredericton, NB Canada
We have a 1.8 GHz G5 in our lab, and I can confirm that it does BLAST searches incredibly fast.

When the BLAST algorithm was vectorized and compiled for the G4, many big biotech companies dumped their collections of P4s running Linux, and bought the fastest G4s they could get. Faster P4s started narrowing the gap, but the G4s were still holding their own (even my modest little 667MHz PowerBook can do BLASTs faster than most desktop PCs). The G5s leave all these systems in the dust.

As more and more labs get their hands on G5 based systems, and bioinformatics centers get their software ported over, we're seeing a serious resurgence of PowerMacs in research. I don't think the PC side will catch up for quite some time.

It's a good time to be a Mac-geek in the bioinformatics world.
bryanc is offline   0
Old Nov 21, 2003, 06:28 PM   #8
LethalWolfe
macrumors Demi-God
 
LethalWolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Quote:
Originally posted by Longey Nowze
I was surprised at first to see that for the first two test they used a 2.8GHz dual xeon set up, while in the other tests they used a 3.2GHz dual xeon set up... then I read the fine print...



apparently that system is recommended by Avid, I would still like to see the the results with the 3.2GHz Xeons, I think they would be faster, but that is expected, doesn't that CPU use the 800MHz system bus? and it has more cache? and the other more obvious thing is that they 3.2GHz Xeons are 1.2GHz faster than the 2GHz G5.

I also would like to see the prices of the other systems compared to the G5s, I'm to lazy to do this now, does anyone feel like going to hp.com, dell.com and alienware.com and check out the systems?

THANK YOU
MaT

edit: spelling
The last time I checked the price of those workstations was comparible (+/- $100 or something) to a top of the line PowerMac.


Lethal
LethalWolfe is offline   0


 
MacRumors Forums > Archive > Archives of Old Posts > MacBytes.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Drive enclosure performance results - nMP vs iMac analog guy Mac Pro 4 Feb 9, 2014 03:36 PM
Nanosaur2 won't play on Dual 1,8GHz, but on 1,33GHz??? Cox Orange PowerPC Macs 3 Dec 21, 2012 04:45 AM
Some SSD vs HDD results on swap file performance whitedragon101 MacBook Pro 0 Oct 29, 2012 08:26 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:08 PM.

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

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