Quad 3GHz Mac Pro vs Quad 2.5GHz PowerMac

Discussion in 'MacRumors News Discussion (archive)' started by FF_productions, Aug 15, 2006.

  1. FF_productions
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 68030

    FF_productions

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2005
    Location:
    Mt. Prospect, Illinois
    #1
  2. Chaszmyr
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 601

    Chaszmyr

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
  3. iGary
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #3
    I would have thought that the Final Cut Pro benchmark would have really blown away the G5 - not so much, right?

    Awesome on FileMaker and I can't wait to see how this stuff runs Adobe PS Natively.
     
  4. MovieCutter
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 68040

    MovieCutter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    Washington, DC
  5. Felldownthewell
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 65816

    Felldownthewell

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Location:
    Portland
    #5
    Amazing.

    However the FCP benchmark is disapointing, but I suppose that it may rise when the x1900 is installed and tested. Still, that photoshop test? I don't think ANYONE expected results that good from a non-UB program. At least I didn't...
     
  6. MovieCutter
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 68040

    MovieCutter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #6
    I did...:D

    DIE POWER PC...DIE!!!
     
  7. cjkihlbom
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2006
    #7
    I'm so glad I ordered the 3 Ghz, almost as fast as the Quad G5 in Photoshop is insane!
     
  8. Xeem
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 6502a

    Xeem

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #8
    Ditto. Sometimes a system's true colors don't show until you've benchmarked modern games on it.
     
  9. mmmcheese
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 6502a

    mmmcheese

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    #9
    (sideshow bob)The Power PC...The!!!(/sideshow bob)
     
  10. CyberPrey
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Location:
    IGH, MN
    #10
    Show.. me.. the.. games...

    LOL, us gamers all sound kinda like broken records :)
     
  11. ricgnzlzcr
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 6502a

    ricgnzlzcr

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    #11
    Wow, I'm really surprised by those photoshop tests. When those go universal I'm sure my jaw will drop
     
  12. Danksi
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 68000

    Danksi

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Location:
    Nelson, BC. Canada
    #12
    My main interest is in FCP the FCP results.

    On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?
     
  13. Chaszmyr
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 601

    Chaszmyr

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    #13
    I couldn't say for sure, but I would guess that the current version of FCP was carefully optimized for the G5, and has not yet undergone the same treatment for Intel chips.
     
  14. bep207
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    #14
    has adobe dropped any hints as to when CS3 will be available
     
  15. FF_productions
    Expand Collapse
    thread starter macrumors 68030

    FF_productions

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2005
    Location:
    Mt. Prospect, Illinois
    #15
    Video cards won't make a difference in FCP as of now if that's what you are asking performance wise. If you are using Motion/Games, anything that really feeds off the video card, then I'd go for the higher end video card.

    Otherwise I'd go for the 2.6 ghz.
     
  16. WildCowboy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator/Editor

    WildCowboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #16
    In March they were saying the second quarter of next year.
     
  17. FF_productions
    Expand Collapse
    thread starter macrumors 68030

    FF_productions

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2005
    Location:
    Mt. Prospect, Illinois
    #17
    2nd quarter of 2007 is what I'm hearing.

    Beat me to it.
     
  18. darh
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    #18
    Couldn't it be the harddrive that is the limiting factor in this bnechmark?
     
  19. QCassidy352
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #19
    oh WOW. Considering that a single 1.67 G4 beats a dual 2.0 core duo in photoshop when the core duo has to use rosetta, the fact that the xeon is nearly even is amazing. That thing is going to be amazing when CS3 comes out! :eek:
     
  20. FF_productions
    Expand Collapse
    thread starter macrumors 68030

    FF_productions

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2005
    Location:
    Mt. Prospect, Illinois
    #20
    When rendering in FCP, it's all about the CPU.

    Fast hard drives contribute to real-time effects, but do NOT contribute to rendering.

    Ram helps a little bit.
     
  21. Danksi
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 68000

    Danksi

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Location:
    Nelson, BC. Canada
    #21
    I've not really used Motion yet, just the other apps within FC-Studio.

    Just been comparing their iMac 1.9 G5 results with those of the 2.66Ghz Mac Pro numbers... I don't think I'll be disappointed in the performance boost! :D

    I guess my main concern is whether or not Apple integrates the individual Final Cut Studio applications more closely, so all of a sudden you'd need a better graphics card to comfortably run the 'editor', rather than just Motion as is the case at the moment.

    I think I'll stick to the 2.66Ghz and standard graphics card, as FCP and compressor are more CPU intensive I believe.
     
  22. FF_productions
    Expand Collapse
    thread starter macrumors 68030

    FF_productions

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2005
    Location:
    Mt. Prospect, Illinois
    #22
    Premiere Pro, for an example, is starting to use GPU-accelerated effects, I think it's a trend that will soon be coming over to FCP.

    I'd get the 2.6 ghz, then add another graphics card in the future if the current one doesn't suffice.
     
  23. Danksi
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 68000

    Danksi

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Location:
    Nelson, BC. Canada
    #23
    Good to know. Thanks.
     
  24. NATO
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 68000

    NATO

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    #24
    Interesting results, definitely makes me want to rob the local bank to buy a 3.0GHz Mac Pro :p

    Spotted something amusing when browsing the barefeats page, an ad for the Apple store advertising 'The New Power Mac G5 Quad - Shop Now' ... Not so new now :p
     
  25. Some_Big_Spoon
    Expand Collapse
    macrumors 6502a

    Some_Big_Spoon

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #25
    Well, we all knew that the G5 isn't a "bad" chip necessarily.. It's older tech, and I think, wasn't really meant for this kind of work (non-server applications).

    Preaching to the choir am I?

     

Share This Page