Dual Core Pentium Vs. Dual CPU G5

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by Little Endian, Aug 6, 2005.

  1. Little Endian macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Location:
    Honolulu
    #1
    http://barefeats.com/dualcore.html

    I find it very interesting that the top of the line Dual Processor G5s can still hold their own in certain benchmarks when compared to a Dual Core Pentium D or Dual processor Xeon machine.

    What I find disturbing is how Mac OSX on Intel will initially perform since many applications in the beggining will rely on Rosetta and result in decreased performance. Seeing how Windows and Windows Apps were always optimized for the X86 platform it makes me wonder how Mac OSX and OSX apps will initially perform on Intel. If a Dual G5 system can still beat a Pentium D running a native X86 OS (Windows) and software then will the first Intel Macs be able to beat the previous generation G5s when they are relying on Rosetta and less than perfectly optimized X86 software?

    I know the Pentium D @ 2.8Ghz is not the fastest and will not neccesarily be in any intel mac but it really makes me wonder if Apple's first Intel macs with whatever processor will be able to beat the highest end G5 machines of the previous generation.
     
  2. javiercr macrumors 6502

    javiercr

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Location:
    London
    #2
    hopefully Adobe and all those will give people that bought their software for the G4/G5 a free version of the x86 version to run native ... but probably they wont
     
  3. StealthRider macrumors 65816

    StealthRider

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Location:
    Yokosuka, Japan
    #3
    Keep in mind that intel's dual core processors are running on one bus rather than the two G5s run on...makes a difference I'm sure.
     
  4. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #4
    it could be issued as a small patch, the executable for potoshop is around 50MB. (which is on the large scale as executables go).
     
  5. jiggie2g macrumors 6502

    jiggie2g

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2003
    Location:
    Brooklyn,NY
    #5
    FUD

    this is such a biased and one sided match it's not even funny. Now let's see the cheap'o $238 Pentium D 820 vs. The top end $2999 Dual 2.7ghz G5. The G5 won wow what a surprise. That Xenon must have been cripled shome how it should have blown that Pentium D out the water.

    The Pentium D 820 can be found in $849 Gateway Desktops. not exactly in the same league as the top end Powermac. The Pentium XE 840 would have been a much better match. Surprisingly the Pentium D managed to beat the G5 in Photoshop.

    Next time I wanna see Athlon X2 4800+ vs. Pentium XE 840 vs. G5 2.7ghz. that would be much better then this load of crap. till then i am officially declaring this test as FUD.
     
  6. mad jew Moderator emeritus

    mad jew

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #6
    People, calm down please. :p

    It's not relevant yet since the chips being compared are today's chips and the chips being used in the Intel Macs will be different chips - hopefully more advanced too.
     
  7. contoursvt macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    #7
    I'd be curious as to how my dual 3.0 xeons would do vs the dual core CPUs. I sent an email to Rob-Art on the barefeats site asking if I can submit some scores and what the procedures would be. Its more for curiosity sake. I only built this machine about 6 months ago.... I'm still very happy with it but I bet it sucks back some electricity ;)
     
  8. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #8
    I don't think a Dual 2.7GHz G5 Mac is as fast as the dual AMD and Intel chips. I think a lot of people try to convince me otherwise, but I do think Intel and AMD chips are equally as fast, or faster. Probably faster.
     
  9. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #9
    Adobe needs to get their **** together to make their software play nicer with PPC chips. Period.

    What was that Mr. Adobe? "Adobe wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for Macintosh.

    Uh huh.
     
  10. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    the trouble is benchmarks are very easy to bias you could do tests with 10 apps then only show the 5 where x86 comes on top, if you look at unbiased benchmarks the G5 wins about a 1/3 AMD wins a 1/3 and intel wins a 1/3, and most comparisons include games which are heavily biased due to optimizations and not on software most owners of powermacs acctually run.
     
  11. andiwm2003 macrumors 601

    andiwm2003

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #11
    sounds reasonable to me. ok thet test is not between the most expesive dual core pentiums vs. the most expensive mac but it shows the trend. that is that the speed increases will be increemntal in the usual 10% to 20% steps. each individual application will perform different.

    so there is no foundation for saying the dual g5s are crap, people buying dual G5's now are stupid, dual g5's are slow and outdated. that's all BS.

    the dual G5's are not outperformers anymore but they are also not beaten by a $500 dell system.

    so my decision stands. i'd rather buy a dual G5 now and enjoy a stable system compatible with the software i already own. the first generation intel macs in combination with first generation os x/intel software won't blow nowadays systems away. better to go for the second intel mac generation in hard- and software.

    my 2 cents.
     
  12. tdhurst macrumors 68040

    tdhurst

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #12
    Good point...

    You make a solid point...
    I remember when my dad had a graphic design shop. Pagemaker was Aldus then, but Adobe bought them right?
    It took YEARS before Adobe apps were made for PCs...if not for the macintosh, adobe simple wouldn't be here.
     
  13. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #13
    Why hasn't Adobe made a 64-bit version of Photoshop?

    Can you imagine addressing 8 GB of memory?

    Why was it just this year that they enabled it to address more than two megs of memory?

    The list goes on.
     
  14. contoursvt macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    #14
    I thought that apps like photosohp and illustrator had lots of optimizing for powerPC processors.
     

Share This Page