Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, May 13, 2005.
Link: dual 2.7GHz G5 benchmarked
Posted on MacBytes.com
Approved by Mudbug
It's just in line with the CPU speed increase - considering nothing much else changed, I'm not sure what else you expected.
How can it be disappointing? It delivers better performance that's in line with the higher clock. What more can you expect? We all know this was a speed bump upgrade and nothing more.
I don't know. Did you happen to see the part about using old mobos with crippled FW800. That could be described as disappointing. Particularly when you consider the cost of the machine. It could just be me though.
Yes, not only is the MoBo and Firewire 800 poor, but I think this upgrade was altogether. 12 months for 0.4Ghz speed increment and a dual layer superdrive, I think that is pretty god damn awful, how is Apple going to sustain pro users with hardware like that, I know people buy Macs for the OS and the software, but that upgrade could turn most people who follow/use macs off.
Because pro users usually have a substantial investment in skills, software and calibrated workflows not to risk upsetting the apple-cart.
Just because the new Athlon whatsit might be 'the best chip in the world', doesn't mean we're going to chuck away our 6 Macs and organise new licences so that my Photoshop filters will run 20% faster...
OS X is so stable and relatively easy to maintain and configure that small studios can fix 95% of problems themselves without the need for tech support. Scale that up to a larger outfit, take all of that into consideration and you see the situation as it really is.
At the bottom of the article, he recommends against buying one of the new dual processor machines with only standard PCI and 4 memory slots. I recently purchased one of these machines and I haven't had a problem with it. I did look around beforehand to find one of the PCI, 8-slot Dual 2.0s, but they all ended up being more expensive than the new 2.0 with a student discount.
I don't think I cheated myself out of a better computer by only having 4 memory slots. Do people (speed, bleeding edge people aside) really think that the new 1.8s and 2.0s are crippled to the point that you shouldn't buy them?
I would have found it disappointing if the increase in speed was less than 10%. As it is, the benchmarks are neither disappointing nor exciting. Considering the 200MHz was an 8% clock speed increase, and these benchmarks show a 10-11% increase, you could say they are doing better than you would expect.
It's an entirely different matter to be disappointed in the upgrade itself.
Unless you have a need for more than 4 Gigs of RAM then I'd say you got a great computer that will be quite fast for years to come. I wouldn't call them crippled, but I wouldn't touch the new 1.8 with someone else's credit card.
I don't remember mentioning being disappointed in the speed increases just the mobo issue. The speed increases are about what one would expect regardless of the upgrade itself being disappointing.
I sure wouldn't mind having a new dual 2.7, but the mobo issue is decidedly disappointing.
The reality is that, while it's not as good as we would have wanted, the performance is reasonable considering the upgrade. It makes current software do its job more quickly and that's not a bad thing.
Pricing includes subsidies for various software to keep them cheap or free. It would be nice if Apple would include more for less but it's not bad considering that I'm using a dual G4/800 that went for $3499 when it was new in late 2001 and a G3/400 (since upgraded) that went for $3999 with Ultra2SCSI card and drive in Spring of 1999.
Yes, but I did also mention the OS X and the software element too as a reason for pro users staying with Macs, but to sum hardware may be more important as time is money.
seeing as the g5 is about the same as the opteron clock for clock and the fastest opteron is only 2.6GHz the g5 is doing ok, sure the update is not as much as people wanted but it's by no means behind the x86 world, the dual core pentium is a POS at only 3.2GHz and you can only get it at them moment in one dell, as for the xeon it has not moved in an age and there is no sign of a dual core version any time soon, the dual core athlon wont ship in quantity untill august september around the time of MWP, which is when IMHO the dual core 3GHz G5 will come, and the dual core opteron is only 2.2GHz so you need to buy two of the things to beat the dual 2.7GHz G5 and they cost the earth, 200MHz dose suck for a year but the g5 is particularly behind the competition.
The G4 speed and performance progress is very dissapointing... oh wait, it's 2005 and we're talking about the dissapointig progress of the G5 after 2 years of production.
FYI, though Apple doesn't officially support it, you can throw 2Gig RAM cards into the G5s and get 8 Gigs in the low end and 16 on the high. I'd love to get 8 into my (last rev) dual 1.8
As someone mentioned above, the thread topic is about the benchmark results, not the update itself. There's a *very* long thread on that topic, as I'm sure you know.
Well, in that case, read my above comment as "ho-hum" instead.
Maybe it's my maths but is there an incremantal increase over the Dual 2.0? 2 to 2.7 =35% increase yes? None of the figures show a 35% increase in speeds. Have I got that right? Bearing in mind I've just got back from the pub . If it is right can anyone explain why? I know that in real terms the 2.7 is a lot faster, but it seems strange given the performance gains over the 2.5
Here's my math:
2.0/2.7 = 0.741 i.e. a 2.0 is roughly 74% of a 2.7
The first 4 benchmarks:
265/356 = 0.744
24/30.9 = 0.777
38.6/50.4 = 0.766
37/48.8 = 0.758
So, the results closely track the difference in clock rates.
And I think you also have to take into account the ease of use, how effectively you get your work done, etc. Yeah, this update sucks, but they'll most likely be trouble free, and you'll get more work done in the long run due to less down time, better workflow, better tools, etc. Ferrari's sure are fast, but how often are they in the shop? How easy it it to get parts? At what cost? Who can fix them.. it's similar here.. fast isn't fast if it's broken.
I bitch about Apple all the time, but really, I wouldn't get anywhere near as much work done on the other platforms.. It just :seems: crappy because we're comparing Apples to Apples, or what's out now to what was promised. The machines aren't crap really, it's just that Apple's traditionally slow to bring out the latest and greatest at regular intervals.
I like your math. After years of Moto's crud, it's nice to see proportional scaling in performance.
I've been thinking of doing that in my new iMac. Just got the 2Ghz and immediately threw in 2 1GB DIMMS before even turning it on. I know there's the 2 GB DIMMS of ECC DDR for the G5 Xserves. I haven't seen a single report of anyone using those DIMMS in PM or iMacs. Anyone have pointers? If I could get 4GB in this guy I'd be a happy camper.
From my experience it isn't only the speed of the computer that allows the user to produce the work.
Give us PCI Express please!
PCI Express is the standard now, and Apple needs to catch up with the rest of the industry. If Apple can't do anything about clockspeed, they could at least give us PCI Express.