Dual-Core G5's vs Dual-Core Pentium and Athlon???

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by RobHague, Nov 1, 2005.

  1. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    #1
    I don't like the benchmarks Apple are now using, comparing last generation 2.7Ghz Dual-Processor to the Quad and so on. I'm sure what people want to know when they are dumping so much money on a new PowerMac, is not if its faster than the last version (shouldnt that be obvious?) but how it compares to a PC for simular tasks.

    How does photoshop compare in performance against say, a Windows system using a Dual-Core pentium at XGhz? Or the Athlon X2? It does not have to be about Intel all the time, AMD exist as well.

    Video Encoding, Music ect... it would be nice to see where in the vast universal equasion of computers the Dual-Core G5's (and Quads) fit.
     
  2. macrumors 601

    andiwm2003

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #2

    i prefer the apple vs. apple benchmarks.

    buying a windows box is no option for me anyway.
    and comparing performance across platforms is very subjective. it depends on the hardware, the sytem, the specific progrm, the specific task. there are too many configurations for windows machines out there to have the comparison that i might be interested in.

    so for me it's only interesting if the new machines are good within the apple universe. then i check in the store if the speed satisfies my needs.

    i only want to have a general idea where the macs stand compared to wintel boxes.

    but of course if you have the option to buy either a mac or a pc then a comparison would be good to have. it will be just hard to find it for your specific needs and options.

    since the dual core macs are about as fast as the old dual g5's this barefeats benchmark for the old g5's and some wintel boxes might help: http://www.barefeats.com/dualcore.html
     
  3. macrumors 68020

    dubbz

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    Alta, Norway
    #3
    There's a Photoshop thread somewhere in these forums where lots of people have posted results for a simple Photoshop test. I remember seeing Opteron, Athlon X2, Xeon and dual G5 results there.

    It should come up in a search.
     
  4. macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #4
    I agree, while Apple to Apple benchmarks are nice, I prefer to see how the new Power Macs compare to Macs as well as PCs. Not that it really matters, I only plan on buying Macs from here on out! :)
     
  5. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Location:
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    #5
    It might be worth noting that it seems as if the Athlon64 X2 or dual core Opteron are the current champs when it comes to Photoshop CS2. Atleast when it comes to the test in question... And I wouldn't call that test comprehensive. :D
     
  6. macrumors 68020

    dubbz

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    Alta, Norway
    #6
    Yes, I have a X2 myself and it's really zippy in Photoshop though I could use some more RAM. Not really surprising, since the current gen AMD's are great, and Adobe probably spend more resources optimizing the Windows version than they do on the OS X version.
     
  7. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    #7
    The dual core AMD's as well as dual CPU xeons and opterons are all very fast. I think my score and a dual core AMD were the only ones to hit under 30 seconds (29 seconds)... My dual xeon 3Ghz box keeps me very happy but let me tell you about the power consumption. LOL....

    I would avoid the dual core Intel stuff even though I love my intel. The dual core intel cpus DO NOT have hyperthreading except for the extreme edition one which costs a fortune. My dual Xeons do have HT so its probably comparable to the extreme dualcore. As a test, I disabled my hyperthreading and ran the test and let me tell you it sucks without it. From 29 seconds I went up to 46 seconds!!! Thats why I think the regular dual core P4's are not so good. If you go intel, get something that does have dual core and hyperthreading if you can help it.
     
  8. macrumors 68030

    superbovine

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    #8
    Just some info on a photoshop benchmark. using photoshop to benmarks PC vs Macs or even different families of processors is not the best measurement because the scripts can be tweaked to favor another processorers advantanges etc. So whenever you look at a photoshop script exam the source of the benchmark. Although, video encoding and audio encoding are pretty decent benchmark to use between the two system because PPC chips usually have the advantage with video and x86 processor usually have the advantage in audio encoding due to RISC vs CISC stuff.
     
  9. macrumors 6502

    jiggie2g

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2003
    Location:
    Brooklyn,NY
    #9
    The Athlon 64 X2's are the fastest chips on the market..bar none. the X2 3800+(dual 2.0ghz 512K L2) have been known to own even the Pentium D 840's(dual 3.2ghz 1MB L2) while running stock in some benchmarks. The other 2 Pentium D's get decimated.

    The great Advantage with the Athlon 64/ FX / Opteron series is the on-chip memory controller this is the X-factor in the CPU besides the short stage pipeline. The On-Chip Memory Controller lets is communicate the with the ram at very low latency via Hypertransport. So even when the L2 cache is cut in half the performance hit is minimal. 512k vs. 1MB L2 AMD 64's have a difference of 5-7% in most benchmarks.
     
  10. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    #10
    I have seen benchmarks showing the Athlon 64 X2's behind too. Usually in creative/content creation type stuff. The Athlons lead the way in all the games though.
     
  11. macrumors 6502

    jiggie2g

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2003
    Location:
    Brooklyn,NY
    #11

    Against what chip what model , i wanna see benchmarks.
     
  12. macrumors regular

    Aliquis

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Location:
    Utah
    #12
    So what is the defacto - cross platform benchmark method? What's the best way to compare this and such and such PC/Intel against this and such and such Mac?
     
  13. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    #13
    You could have at least said please ;)

    Quickly searching...
    http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-15.html

    There it took the 4800+ to beat the 3.2Ghz Pentium D (considering the price difference id hope so). Same story on other sites, the Pentium and AMD take the lead over each other depending. You really can't just say XXX chip is the best. period. Because it depends what you want to do with the computer. If someone buys a system for Audio/Video work why would they care if the Athlon can play Doom3 xxfps faster than the Intel?

    But as the Intels are no slouch for VIDEO/AUDIO im assuming its why Apple see them as their main competitors.... although not anymore i guess :D
     
  14. macrumors 6502

    jiggie2g

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2003
    Location:
    Brooklyn,NY
    #14

    LMAO it's obvious that you don't know much about PC Tech sites , if you did you would have not posted a link from the Intel Propoganda Machine Tom's Hardware , they have become the FOX News of Tech Sites. I have seen the Inquirer , Anandtech , and a bunch of those forums slam these guy because they are soo deep in Intels Pocket. TOM IS AN INTEL WHORE.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2484&p=5
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    #15
    AMD and digital creation content

    Exactly. techreport.com, anandtech, etc show the X2 and Opteron chips are smokin' on dcc..that's precisely why i bought one. Intel is currently way behind AMD. Exception...Intel does VERY well on Photoshop....but compare them on 3d Maya/3dsmax renders...AMD rules. Proof of Intel's overall lesser performance, worse power consumption, heat, etc compared to AMD is in abundance..and not the least of which is... Intel just announced a shake up in their "roadmap"...where they are now basically going to copy AMD's HyperTransport. Hey...it's very good news for Apple x86 imo. Intel has brought many great things to market...and more are probably on the way...merom/conroe, etc.

    I am looking forward to seeing some quad core Opteron 280 systems go up against the quad PM...just for fun. Because of NUMA...i'm betting on the Opterons...confidently.

    peace
     
  16. macrumors 604

    ravenvii

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Location:
    Melenkurion Skyweir
    #16
    How did I know you will post in this thread, I wonder?
     
  17. macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #17
    Speed and benchmarks are one thing, but the stability of the OS is another. A 10 to 20% hit on performance on Ps or another program will be well worth the it staying with OSX over WinC(rap)....
     
  18. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    #18
    Well, the Intel Propoganda Machine known as "Tom's Hardware" said the AMD was the better CPU in the Conclusion. :rolleyes:

    I think Intel need a new propoganda machine don't you? ;)
     
  19. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    #19
    I dont think anyone actually read the thread. Just started blabbing about toms hardware.. propaganda..blah blah blah. He concluded that the dual core AMD was better and faster in virtually every test and used less power too and its the way to go. God I hate people who dont even read before they speak. I'm sure he was taking AMD's side in this review because he's an Intel whore...... :rolleyes:

    That said, I'll put my dual xeon box against any currently released X2 or dual opteron :) I've already had a chance to play with my friends X2 4800+ ... its very fast for photoshop but not fast enough to take out my older 3Ghz xeons. Other tasks are a different story but for photoshop I think dual core's with HT (extreme edition) or dual xeons would be the best choice.
     
  20. macrumors 6502

    jiggie2g

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2003
    Location:
    Brooklyn,NY
    #20
    Here's that Tech Report Article you were talking about.

    http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q3/athlon64-x2-3800/index.x?pg=7

    and if anyone whats to know Tom has a history of being very favorable to Intel when he reviews thier Nuclear Powered CPU's. just do a google search

    http://www.geek.com/newsbeta2/geeknews/2002Sep/bch20020912016318.htm

    http://forums.anandtech.com/message...eyword=&STARTPAGE=1&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

    Another interesting read from the horses mouth

    http://www.tgdaily.com/2004/02/18/intel/
     
  21. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    #21
    Jiggie2g, those links really dont prove anything, they are pretty much speculation and not real hard facts.
     
  22. macrumors 601

    andiwm2003

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #22
    wow, 15 out of 20 mails don't even mention apple anymore. this has become a thread intel vs. amd. please add at least where the mac's would fit in. but i guess they suck anyway compared to the super duper gaming rigs.
     
  23. macrumors 6502

    jiggie2g

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2003
    Location:
    Brooklyn,NY
    #23
    It Amazes me how many so called loyal mac fan have suddenly flip floped into Intel Fanboys almost over night ,I remember a time if some one came here braging about Intel they would get Flamed and Crucified.

    Now since the Almighty Steve'O managed to shaft himself after tryin to low ball IBM on CPU pricing then come up with a foney let me save face excuse like "Intel's are more Power efficient". It's good they told him to take a walk.

    Suddenly Apple jumps on the Sinking ship that is Intel and fanbois have multiplied like Gremlins. Please people in the last 8 months alone how many time has intel revised thier road map just to try and match AMD. Now they are trying to Implement HTT in thier own systems ...talk about pathetic. that company has so many Internal problems it's almost Legendary...the Enginnering Dept. and Marketing Dept. have a fued that is only rivaled by Sony's Electronics Division vs. Sony's Music Division.

    How do u think Intel got to this point in the 1st place ,

    Intel Exec: We need more ghz to promote these CPU's
    Intel Engineer : Well if we keep ramping up speed at this rate our cpu's will have to be designed less efficiently.

    Intel Exec:I don't care we want more speed , we want 4ghz nowwwwwwwwwww.
    Intel Engineer : Ok but I have to warn you , eventually these chips are going to hit a wall and overheat too much.

    Intel Exec: Screw that we'll worry about it later , you guys can fix it. We just want to sell more chips.
    Intel Engineer : (shakes his head in disbelief).....Okay don't say I didn't warn you.
     
  24. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    #24
    >>>I see you've had your daily cup of Apple koolaid. That's pure MacFUD.
     
  25. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    #25
    jiggie2g,

    The reality is this. Intel has been around longer than AMD. Intel only went the high Mhz route since the P4... P3 and older were not of this design. Either case, I personally was an AMD fan. These were my systems:

    AMD K6 233, 64mb RAM
    AMD K2-350, 128mb RAM
    AMD Athlon classic 600Mhz, 256mb RAM
    AMD Thunderbird 1Ghz, 256mb RAM
    AMD Thunderbird 1.4Ghz, 512mb RAM
    AMD XP 1800+ 512mb RAM
    AMD XP 2500+ 1024mb RAM

    I decided i'll try intel for once and went for a P4 2.4C system on an Abit IS7 mainboard (865pe board) with 1gig RAM and can say it was better and more satisfying than all my previous systems, not just because it was faster but because it was in my opinion a little less buggy and multitasking was much smoother. From there I went to a 3.0C which was great. I currently have a Dual 3Ghz Xeon Nocona system with 2 gig RAM and I think its incredible. I have played around with a friends X2 4800+ and in my opinion, it is a nice system and it is fast but in at least photoshop, it is not faster than my already somewhat old dual xeon box so dont think just because its intel, means its not fast.

    Intel has had many other advantages over AMD as well. The fact that the processor would protect itself in the event of a cpu fan failiure is one important item. This feature has been around for ever on the intels and until recently not available on the AMD within the chip. Some boards had options for it but even they would not be ideal. I wouldnt trust it.

    Also I dont know what the power consumption of a dual core AMD system is but as high as the intel's might be, I dont think its as bad as everyone makes it seem. My dual cpu box with 2 gigs ram, 3 scsi drives, x800xt-pe video, scsi controller, addon soundcard and two optical drives uses about 228 watts at idle and about 308w during Doom3 gameplay.
     

Share This Page