G5 benchmarks slower?

Discussion in 'Games' started by couch potato, Oct 14, 2003.

  1. couch potato macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    #1
    well, my family got the G5 2ghz today. its nice, and fast, although it makes this quiet, weird noise. anyway, i figured taht the G5 would beat athlon and PC's in benchmarking, but maybe no?click here to see a benchmark of P4, G5, and athlon. athlon and P4 beats both of them:confused:

    actually, it was my PC-totting friend who came bragging to me, and showed these to me.

    so are we always gonna have hardware slow? i still love os x better than anything else, especially for programming, bit this just disheartens me:(

    i told him they need to put 8 gb of ram in there to get the FULL potential, but he just brushed it off

    morale support needed:eek:
     
  2. ZildjianKX macrumors 68000

    ZildjianKX

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    #2
    This is confusing me... they say the G5s have 128 MB of graphics memory, that implies the Radeon 9800 Pro. There would not be a 200% increase between the 1.8 GHz and the 2.0 GHz when the bottleneck is the graphics card for Quake III...

    Nice of them to list the full specs of all the machines... anyone else have any input?
     
  3. mattmack macrumors 6502a

    mattmack

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    San Francisco Area
    #3
    Re: G5 benchmarks slower?

    Wow could be the Athlon systems all had twice as much grahics ram as the Apples? Also a Raid style Hard Drive. And it doesn't say how much system Ram there was in each system. You can make benchmarks say anything you want. The bottom line is are you happy with the machine cause if you are not i"ll take it off your hands:)
     
  4. ZildjianKX macrumors 68000

    ZildjianKX

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    #4
    Actually, the 256 vs 128 Megs of graphics RAM shouldn't make a difference, its pretty worthless really.

    Anyways, way at the bottom it does say each system as 1 Gig of RAM, and Radeon 9800 Pros.

    It still doesn't make sense to me the huge FPS difference in Quake III.
     
  5. couch potato thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    #5
    "all machines were tested with 1GB of ram" :(

    no you cant have it. im LOVING IT:) im just wondering about the benchmarks:confused:
     
  6. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #6
    It seems about right for what they tested and Mac OS X v 10.2 running.

    Does anyone really expect MS Word to run faster on Mac OS X than it does on Windows?

    Adobe Premiere hasn't worked particularly well on Mac OS 9 or X. That's part of the reason it has lost momentum and Adobe canceled it for Mac.

    Adobe Photoshop 7.0.1 should be better. Version 8 apparently shows great improvements since there's no Mac OS 9 compromise.

    You'll find that there are quite a few other benchmarks out there that show more and different, more complimentary results.
     
  7. XnavxeMiyyep macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #7
    The only PC's that beat the Macs in Quake III were the ones with more powerful video cards. I'm not sure what to say about those other tests though, except that we'd better hope Panther improves G5's compared to 10.2 as much as it improves G3's compared to 10.2.
     
  8. couch potato thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    #8
    adobe's site says premier is for mac:confused:

    i guess those new athlons have 2.2ghz fsb's, which pwn the 1ghz G5?:(
     
  9. ZildjianKX macrumors 68000

    ZildjianKX

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    #9
    Okay, those G5 1.8 GHz vs DP 2.0 GHz benchmarks have to be bull****.

    Check this out:

    [​IMG]

    The DP 1.25 GHz G4 is neck and neck w/ the dual G5 in Quake III... do you really think a DP 1.25 GHz G4 would kick a 1.8 GHz G5's ass in Quake III? Come on...
     
  10. ZildjianKX macrumors 68000

    ZildjianKX

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    #10
    Those lazy bastards messed up...

    http://www.macworld.com/2003/09/reviews/macworldlabfirstg5testresults/

    They got macworld to do their results, but didn't use a Radeon 9800 Pro in the 1.8 GHz G5.

    The results are almost identical, and at the bottom macworld states:
    "The 2GHz DP model we tested had ATI's 128MB Radeon 9800Pro graphics card installed which is available as a build-to-order option."

    Which gives the 1.8 GHz probably the stock NVIDIA card... bastards.
     
  11. couch potato thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    #11
    yeah i saw that in teh mac magazine.

    ok i just tried mohaa on maxed out settings (every last thing maxed) and played at 1024 X 768 and 1600 X 1200. its actually runs better at 1600:eek: anyway, most of the time it ran no slower than 34fps, but at one point it hit 19, but just for a sec. i want doom 3 on this baby :D
     
  12. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #12
    PCs are faster in games. They will always be. Who cares?

    10% difference in a 4 your old game? So what?

    Enjoy your G5. Its the nicest PC on the planet. Period.
     
  13. couch potato thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    #13
    i have been enjoying it since i opened the box.:)

    meh, i dont really care anymore. the g5 plays any mac game, and thats all i could ask for anyway. plus, it still has the best os out there:)
     
  14. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #14
    i have to make one comment on all those g5 tests that are being published everywhere and that is the g5 is still on a 32 bit os,running apps that dont use 64 bit. when panther rolls out the g5 will operate in the 64 bit mode os and this should improve all those benchmarks. also apps will be coming out to take advantage of all that power. Stay tuned for panther on a G5.
     
  15. Chad macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    #15
    one thought is say in PS its 1 second dif for the one file and 4 seconds for the other file
    well the one thing they dont include is how fast the file loads and opens and writes which is more real world
    the other thing is the filter interface loads way faster on a mac
    I just got a G5 2x2 and so far its great

    in real world opening and closing files and waiting for the filter interfaces to open etc.. its faster than others
    another mag also pointed out if we included the times for the file to open the macs would have won ????
    I say DUH that is real world

    now I also say it wont be the fastest every single time in every single ap to me it is fastest where it counts (I am a photographer for a living) and that is why when the G52x2 came out I got one for PS and so far loving it enough to switch a few other things over to the Mac side
    I still have 3 PCs here also ;) but only one is running now as the Mac has filled there shoes ;)

    I say think of it as Tiger Woods he doesnt win every thing he enters but he is still the best out there ;)
     
  16. crazzyeddie macrumors 68030

    crazzyeddie

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #16
    You need to realize a few things about these benchmarks:

    1) The version of Quake3 they used wasn't the latest version for the Mac. They used 1.32 but version 1.32a shows more speed improvements. Even 1.32a can be made to run faster on the G5 (WITHOUT 64-BIT).

    2) Premiere sucks on the Mac, i dont like it at all, and i totally disregarded that benchmark.

    3) Look at the prices of these computers. People say Macs are expensive, well go build those computers and tell me how much they cost.

    This benchmark has NOTHING to do with 32/64-bit. All of these processors are running everything at 32-bit and 64-bit is not even an issue at this point.
     
  17. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #17
    quite right. How convenient to just ignore the opening/ closing times where the G5 wins even though that's just as much a part of real world usage as the manipulations they did.

    Always, always take benchmarks with a grain of salt. It doesn't matter who's doing the testing - either intentionally or not, something is usually not what it seems.
     
  18. yamabushi macrumors 65816

    yamabushi

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    #18
    This is junk. I used to trust PC World. Not anymore. This test is completely broken and has no meaning at all. I don't mind seeing Macs losing in a fair fight, but this is just silly.
     

Share This Page