Dual Xeon vs. Dual 1.25 Power Mac

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by law guy, Apr 13, 2003.

  1. law guy macrumors 6502a

    law guy

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2003
    Location:
    Western Massachusetts
    #1
    www.barefeats.com has a link to a comparison between a dual 2.80 Xeon and a dual 1.25 PM. The link comment points out the only 19% faster speed of the dual Xeon system over the dual 1.25 PM.


    "Speaking of Dual Xeon, you'll want to see this graph of a Dual Xeon versus Dual G4. Even though the Dual 2.8GHz Xeon has a 124% faster clock speed than the Dual 1.25GHz G4, it only runs the test suite 19% faster. (Ignore the pricing. They're way off.)"

    The comparison itself it at:

    http://www.simkiss.net/mac.html

    It's not clear to me what the controls of the test were, e.g. what software was used, although there is a list of Adobe applications on the page and barefeats refers to the "test suite".

    I actually found this quite encouraging. For example, according to this test, a 1.25 PM owner will have a machine that is 90% faster than a 2.5 GHz P4, and as mentioned only 19% slower than a dual 2.8. Here, the price / performance actually favors Apple a bit. I configured a Dell Precision workstation in a few different lines a couple weeks back and with one processor and a DVD writable drive and a 64 MB vid card upgrade I was at $3,000 with only one 120 GB HD - add another $900 to $1,200 for the second processor. I would imagine that my dual 1.42 would be even closer to the dual Xeon system (and at only $2,600 +).

    The 1.42 is quite fast in its feel in general (My applications open instantaneously... I note that when I'm not fussing around in something else a SETI@home work unit only takes a bit over 5 hours to complete). But this comparison was nice to see.

    There is also a comparison of a dual 1.42 vs. a single P4 3 GHz HT machine on barefeats. The P4 did win two out of three tests, but the dual 1.42 was very close on the two it lost. Again, price / performance is close once one configures a Dell with a writable DVD drive, FW card, 512 MB of ram, a 120 GB HD, and video card.
     
  2. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #2
    yeah intel is the fastest right now, but i have 2ghz pc and a dual 1.25 powermac. the are both very zippy, but when it comes down to it, the os keeps me coming back to my mac. but im sure somebody who does rendering and stuff like that will need the pc, thats why pixar moved to dual xeons instead of xserves.

    iJon
     
  3. law guy thread starter macrumors 6502a

    law guy

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2003
    Location:
    Western Massachusetts
    #3
    Sure, it seems like there's been a good deal of woe and dread lately, but the OS is great and my point is that while Intel is faster, it doesn't really seem to be that MUCH faster - and in some cases is slower on optimized apps. To read some of these threads you'd think the G4 was just dog slow and a left over from the IIfx, so I thought this was a good check on that.

    iJon - also see http://homepage.mac.com/tjparadise for pictures of new baby and film all done on the 1.42 you guys sent me.
     
  4. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #4
    acutually playing around on my pc the only thing that seems zippier is grabbing a window and moving it around the screen, it can do it lightning fast. other than that os x is faster, i think the eye candy just makes people overlook that sometime to a windows machine.

    iJon
     
  5. yzedf macrumors 65816

    yzedf

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Location:
    Connecticut
  6. Mr. MacPhisto macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    #6
    The G4 is still a very good chip. I'd be willing to bet that the dual 1.25 would beat out the dual Xeon if the memory bottleneck could be removed. I still want the PPC970, but if either Moto or IBM can modify the G4, give it a faster FSB and a few other refinements, then this chip could compete with most of the PC chips out there.

    I really don't understand a lot of the complaints on speed. A friend of mine owns a production company that does video editing and animation. He's got PCs and Macs and the Macs tend to only take 10-20 seconds longer to render similar projects, sometimes up to 2 minutes. Is that much of a sacrifice? For him it is not, because the Macs get more done - because they don't crash 1/10 as much as the PCs do and the OS makes things easier. If you did a study of speed - including down time and up time, as well as IT cost - the Mac would win hands down.
     
  7. acj macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    #7
    Sometimes speed matters

    Since Mac has dual as the norm, they often win out on OS "feel" as multitasking is smoother, sometimes by a huge ammount (except scrolling and resizing windows, what's the deal with that). PC's do better only with the 3.06 pentium 4 with Hyperthreading, which helps multitasking a huge amount.

    Still, I work with converting 11Megapixel Canon 1ds RAW files, and the reality is it's just way too slow on any Mac. I'm talking taking way too long at 2 hours on the PC, or WAY WAY too long at 3-4 hours on the Mac. STRICTLY using Photoshop (Apples favorite benchmark! Ha!) I can't see how anyone would choose a Mac if money and speed (even unrelated) are a concern.
     
  8. markomarko macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2002
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    #8
    Improved G4 After Effects rendering

    You might find the following article of interest:

    http://www.creativemac.com/2003/04_apr/tutorials/aerender030408.htm

    I am surprised that this hasn't been pointed to by more mac users to rebuff Charlie White's earlier comparison of G4 vs. P4 render times.
     
  9. cubist macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2002
    Location:
    Muncie, Indiana
    #9
    The article said, almost in passing, "ignore the pricing". Dual-Xeon machines are not your Wal-Mart PCs - they're very expensive.
     
  10. acj macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    #10
    Price

    Like Macs.
     
  11. janey macrumors 603

    janey

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Location:
    sunny los angeles
    #11
    dual xeons are indeed pricey...
    however macs and pc's have strengths and weaknesses.
    i find that my dp 1.42ghz Power Mac is much faster than my dual xeon (2.4ghz) when using photoshop or shake but the PC's much better for games and stuff you need windows pc's for (basically nothing).
     
  12. acj macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    #12
    Really? I'm very currious. The fastest Photoshop machine is precisely what I need.

    What sort of commands to you do? My most common commands are Crop (with resize and slight rotation), USM, Gaussian blur of an adjustment layer mask, Curves, painting in an adjustment layer mask with a HUGE brush (like 2000 pixels)

    Do you do any digital camera RAW conversion? And how much faster? Your Mac is top of the line while your PC is not. Are the specs similar, do you run XP? Thanks in advance.
     
  13. janey macrumors 603

    janey

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Location:
    sunny los angeles
    #13
    let me go backwards...xp and 2k and linux (shake doesn't run on windows), depends, sometimes, anything i feel like doing in photoshop, yes.
    and for playing games my PC is fine enough thank you very much it has a very nice workstation class graphics card.
     
  14. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #14
    Re: Improved G4 After Effects rendering

    interesting indeed, is this something that is turned on by default if you render some stuff on a g4 with after effects, and i wonder if adobe used that when rendering when they chose pcs over macs.

    iJon
     
  15. markomarko macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2002
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    #15
    Re: Re: Improved G4 After Effects rendering

    According to the article, it isn't set up by default, if I recall correctly, what it does is set up a render farm in the case of your dual-processor Power Mac.

    I've submitted this story to Slashdot and Macslash. I hope they pick it up as this could seriously skewer Charlie White's test results (which were used by Adobe on their now infamous "Preferred Platform" page).
     
  16. MacCoaster macrumors 6502a

    MacCoaster

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Location:
    Washington, DC / Rochester, NY / Lexington, NC
    #16
    WTF, Xeon 2.4?

    Why not dual Xeon 3.06 GHz. Yet more than 19% performance gap. Lame. Bring on the 970s!
     
  17. NavyIntel007 macrumors 65816

    NavyIntel007

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #17
    Don't know if you guys heard yet, but Intel is posponing shipments on the 3.06 GHZ P4. So you can basically throw those benchmarks away and focus on the slower chip because if Intel isn't shiping them, you can't test with them.

    Hopefully the 970 lives up to the hype and at least matches the current Intel spead because it seems like Intel hit a roadblock and are having a major set back.
     
  18. law guy thread starter macrumors 6502a

    law guy

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2003
    Location:
    Western Massachusetts
    #18
    Re: Price

    No dude - A dual 1.42 mac is $2600 bucks, whereas to get your dual 3.06 Xeon and slight performance gain (given the 19% difference between the 1.25 and dual 2.8 Xeon), you'd be shelling out around $4,000+ for a similarly configured (64 mb of vid, dvd writable drive, 120 GB hd, 512 MB ram) Dell precision workstation.. or ($1400 / 19) $73 per precent of performance incresase over the Mac.

    I'd also point you to the barefeats web page re: the 3.04 P4 (not the Xeon) comparison shows a neck-and-neck race with the Mac winning one of the three tests. Again - price point is similar, once one configures say a dell and a Mac the same (by adding the writable DVD, FW card on the consumer line, 120 GB HD, etc.) it seems that performance for the dolllar is very close.

    BTW - when your talking about the Canon 11 MB file and you have a 2 hour to 4 hour PC / Mac comparison - what PC and what Mac? You say on "any mac" but does that mean a dual 1.42? or a tangerine iMac?
     
  19. law guy thread starter macrumors 6502a

    law guy

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2003
    Location:
    Western Massachusetts
    #19
    MacCoaster - it was dual 2.8 Xeons in the test - not 2.4s - against a dual 1.25 Mac, so not a 1.42.
     

Share This Page