MacAddict's Power Mac G5 Tests

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by adamfilip, Sep 13, 2003.

  1. macrumors 6502a

    adamfilip

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2003
    Location:
    burlington, Ontario canada
    #1
  2. macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #2
    Yeah...

    So remember if you max out your Ram and your video card... you get an absurd preformance boost.

    :p
     
  3. macrumors 68040

    Powerbook G5

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    St Augustine, FL
    #3
    Mmm...RAM...all that RAM really stands for is your Really Awesome Mac quotiant. The higher your RAM, the more awesome your Mac becomes. My PowerBook is not so awesome, unfortunately, it only has 192 out of 384 possible awesomeness points. This makes me sad, but this is the way of things.
     
  4. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Location:
    United States
    #4
    don't feel sad. my emachines PC has only 256mb of ram and my 9 year old thinkpad is maxed our at 24mb ram.
     
  5. macrumors 68040

    Powerbook G5

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    St Augustine, FL
    #5
    My dad had an eMachines at work one time. That really made me sad. It reminded me of a splitting headache, hitting your thumb with a hammer accidentally, and tripping over the garden hose causing you to scrape both knees and elbows all rolled up into one singular painful force.
     
  6. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    #6
    So to complete the picture...

    It would be great if we could see what the times are for the other machines when they're not crippled with only 512MB of RAM...

    Then we'll know how much faster the G5 really will be for Photoshop users who have always known that RAM is important.
     
  7. macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #7
    Re: So to complete the picture...

    "crippled with only 512 MB RAM".... wow, times have changed :D

    BTW, I agree entirely.
     
  8. macrumors 68000

    nospleen

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Location:
    Texas
    #8
    I wish they would have installed the ram and the updated video card in the 1.8 and see what it would do. I was pretty impressed with how the 1.8 did stock against the dual 2.0. But, if I had the extra cash, I would still purchase the dual 2.0.
     
  9. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    #9
    Ballpark figure for a Dual 800 Quicksilver

    I know it's not the same file that the MacAddict people used, so take these numbers only casually, but I tried some of the tasks on a 115 MB Photoshop file with my Dual 800 G4 with 1.5 GB of RAM. I just wanted to get a ballpark idea of how fast/slow my machine is.

    Rotate 90 degrees: about 3.5 seconds
    Convert RGB to CMYK: about 17 seconds
    Gauss 1 pixel: 5 secs
    Gaussian blur 25 pixels: 22.5 secs

    So for the first three, it seems like the G5 is about twice as fast, but the Gaussian blur for 25 pixels was 4-5 times faster on the G5.
     
  10. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2003
    #10
    i already bought an extra gig of ram for my stock dualie look like im gunna get another
     
  11. macrumors 601

    stoid

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2002
    Location:
    So long, and thanks for all the fish!
    #11
    Just for some more reference:

    Gateway 930Mhz, 128MB RAM, no clue what video card because I don't know how to find out.


    Rotate 90 degrees - 90 seconds
    RGB to CYMK - 62 seconds
    Guassian Blur 1 pixel - 69 seconds
    Gaussian Blur 25 pixels - 102 seconds
     
  12. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    adamfilip

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2003
    Location:
    burlington, Ontario canada
    #12
    those are some pretty scary numbers.. 90 sec to rotate 90 degrees?!
     
  13. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    #13
    Yes, wow thats terrible, lol. Get rid of that peice :p

    By the way, it probably has an integraded card.

    If you are running XP, you can see by:
    Right clicking on your desktop
    Click properties
    Then the settings tab
    Click advanced
    Then the adapter tab
     
  14. macrumors 68040

    MattG

    Joined:
    May 27, 2003
    Location:
    Fletcher, NC
    #14
    Sweet...glad I ordered an extra 1gb of memory for mine. Now if only they'd SHIP the damned thing.
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    Genie

    Joined:
    May 25, 2003
    Location:
    heaven
    #15
    I got 3 extra Gigs from Crucial for my dualie.
     
  16. macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #16
    please dont hurt me but when isnt ram a performance boost??If you dont have to access your harddrive and have it all sitting in memory then the cpu is able to allways be working on something,G5,G4,G3-more memory is allways a good thing.
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    #17
    I think the big thing is that with the new bus and whatnot, the speed boost from extra RAM is gonna be a lot more extreme than before. I saw a big boost going from 256 to 1Gig, but not that much going from 1 Gig to 2 Gig. I think with th G5s, there's gonna be just as big a jump, going from Gig to Gig....
     
  18. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Location:
    United States
    #18
    wow.

    i haven't had a bit of grief with mine. it doesn't crash and it offers excellent bang-for-the-buck. i'm happy with it. i'm still gonna work my way towards an imac though. or a G5 if i'm lucky. :D
     
  19. macrumors 6502a

    Genie

    Joined:
    May 25, 2003
    Location:
    heaven
    #19
    I was just about to get a Dell when they delayed my dualie shipment but Dell couldn't offer anything close to the value.
     
  20. macrumors 68040

    Powerbook G5

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    St Augustine, FL
    #20
    It was an older eMachines and it seriously was a cheap piece of crap. I've noticed that overall quality has actually improved on many PCs since the years I used to be a PC user. But yeah...it was an AMD K...6 I think? with 3D Now when it was the hottest new technology. I think it had 32 megs RAM an running Win 95 I believe. It seriously just could bearly just run Windows by itself, but when you tried running something on top of that, it just slowly started to die for the next hour or two until it became unstable. I think it was probably some sort of memory leak, because it'd just work towards a full system-wide slowdown until it just died everytime you used it. I haven't used any of the new eMachines, but they do look like they have a bit more quality when I pass by them at Circuit City.
     
  21. macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #21
    Don't feel bad!

    HA!

    My Calculator HAS MORE MEMORY THEN THE LAPTOP MY SCHOOL GAVE ME!

    :eek:

    It... Runs... PALM-OS!!!!

    :confused:
     
  22. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2003
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    #22
    If 2GB of RAM took 2 seconds to rotate 90 degrees, I don't think 8GB of RAM will take any seconds.
     
  23. macrumors 6502a

    Vlade

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Location:
    Meadville, PA
    #23
    Thats probably not the case, the file probably uses anywhere from 512 to 2GBs or RAM, so 512 wouldn't be enough for the file, but 2Gbs would be more than enough.

    I would like to see some tests of all memory configurations in 512 meg intervals, :)
     
  24. macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #24
    I have to make one more comment since iam a subscriber to macaddict, they are getting away from using any gaming frame rates and that simply sucks! Come on Rik! how about a Ut2003 or Nascar 2003 or RTCW but to keep feeding us those darn blurs,rotation, photoshop and no gaming rates can mean little to nothing to a lot of people. We want to know if doom3 will be faster on g5 mac then when the wind blows machines.
     
  25. macrumors 68000

    Mav451

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Location:
    Maryland
    #25
    Don't Hurt Me: MacAddict did that for many reasons.

    Mac's, while improving in games, are still much stronger in their Photoshop performance--hence their use at keynotes and in this case, showing the performance difference between the G4 and G5.

    With PC's, photoshop optimizations are not as emphasized (I don't think AMD has specific optimizations). PC's i find are STILL the better gaming platform at-the-moment.
     

Share This Page