Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AMD Zone tries to slam the G5
- Thread starter The Reaper
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Personally, I find that most windows sites are so cemented in their opinions that it's worthless to expend time and energy on pointing out the holes in their arguments. Not only that, sometimes they just post that stuff to get publicity.
:shrug: Whatever.
:shrug: Whatever.
Just ask Intel, they seem to have a good reason as to why the G5 scares them to the point of silence on the issue...
Well, in most tasks that I have seen from independent sites, DUAL 3.0Ghz XEON is faster than DUAL G5. But this AMD guy's assumption that DUAL OPTERON will perform better than DUAL G5 shows that guy doesn't know a whole lot about AMD OR G5.
He made that assumption from th efact that since 1.6 G5 was 158 and DUAL G5 was 66 that's gotta be because of the second processor. So he applied the same concept to AMD's workstation chip. I don't believe that G5 is the fastest PERSONAL computer either out there... BUt it's just important it can compete!
I agree with PowerBook G5 guy that No matter how all these windows, amd and intel sites try to down play G5's performance, they still know that it's not good for them when a company like IBM gets together with company like APPLE...
He made that assumption from th efact that since 1.6 G5 was 158 and DUAL G5 was 66 that's gotta be because of the second processor. So he applied the same concept to AMD's workstation chip. I don't believe that G5 is the fastest PERSONAL computer either out there... BUt it's just important it can compete!
I agree with PowerBook G5 guy that No matter how all these windows, amd and intel sites try to down play G5's performance, they still know that it's not good for them when a company like IBM gets together with company like APPLE...
I've been a reader of that site since the VERY DAY Athlons came out to compete against Intel.
What i don't understand is why he wastes so much time comparing it to the G5 or bashing Apple.
I don't want an Apple comparison--i want an AMD vs. Intel comparison (which is more relative in the corporate/IT world anyway).
I'm not so sure i could agree with that. The SK8N retails for 200-250 dollars. With the current pricing patterns, the 146 will probably retail close to 650 dollars. That's about 900 dollars. The only thing that would actually be "new" per say is the registered memory--and corsair is retailing registered 3200DDR sticks for about 150dollars/512 stick.
Soo get 2 sticks, that puts the grand total at $1200. Understandably, one could talk about software, etc. but i'm simply talking about a current AMD user who is opting to switch platforms. If i were to switch from my current nforce2 platform to an opteron one, the cost would still be several hundreds from the entry-level 1.6G5.
The TYAN and MSI boards have the PCI-X, should you need them. But i doubt someone aiming for a computer for under 1500dollars would need PCI-X.
Coming from a gamers point of view, i don't need PCI-X at the moment. Perhaps for future video cards, but by that time, the motherboard situation would have changed significantly.
**A last comment. It is funny that many of you discredit his knowledge with AMD hardware when none of you have actually used, tested, or even seen an Opteron processor or motherboard. Many of you here claim that you are not equally as opinionated--i would hold your tongue before "casting that first stone".
What i don't understand is why he wastes so much time comparing it to the G5 or bashing Apple.
I don't want an Apple comparison--i want an AMD vs. Intel comparison (which is more relative in the corporate/IT world anyway).
I'm not so sure i could agree with that. The SK8N retails for 200-250 dollars. With the current pricing patterns, the 146 will probably retail close to 650 dollars. That's about 900 dollars. The only thing that would actually be "new" per say is the registered memory--and corsair is retailing registered 3200DDR sticks for about 150dollars/512 stick.
Soo get 2 sticks, that puts the grand total at $1200. Understandably, one could talk about software, etc. but i'm simply talking about a current AMD user who is opting to switch platforms. If i were to switch from my current nforce2 platform to an opteron one, the cost would still be several hundreds from the entry-level 1.6G5.
The TYAN and MSI boards have the PCI-X, should you need them. But i doubt someone aiming for a computer for under 1500dollars would need PCI-X.
Coming from a gamers point of view, i don't need PCI-X at the moment. Perhaps for future video cards, but by that time, the motherboard situation would have changed significantly.
**A last comment. It is funny that many of you discredit his knowledge with AMD hardware when none of you have actually used, tested, or even seen an Opteron processor or motherboard. Many of you here claim that you are not equally as opinionated--i would hold your tongue before "casting that first stone".
that $1500 doesn't buy you a whole system. in any case, the powermacs DO have PCI-X, as this is part of being the world's most powerful personal computer. no skimping on parts. remember, the bus on the 2GHz G5 is the fastest available. it includes Serial ATA HDs, with the highest performance in the non workstation category (ie not expensive SCSI).
the Opteron is x86. Cinebench (or, more accurately, Cinema 4D) performs far better on x86 chips than PPC chips, consistently. the Opteron may be a new chip just like the G5, but the opteron has the advantage of being on the optimised side of the game. the x86 side, in general, has an advantage, regardless of whether a chip has been optimised for.
the Opteron has this inherent advantage. most high performance software brings the optimisations to both platforms (Maya, Renderman, Photoshop etc), but Cinema 4D is still working with apple around some issues.
Good reply The Reaper
Why the hell is it that if you correct some of these PC sites and users {and no I dont mean all but some} or add a legitimate rebuttal you are automatically a zealot or cultist simply because you dont agree with what they are saying.
Why the hell is it that if you correct some of these PC sites and users {and no I dont mean all but some} or add a legitimate rebuttal you are automatically a zealot or cultist simply because you dont agree with what they are saying.
Last time I checked, opterons where on 1.6 Ghz
I have no idea if Opterons scale as good as the G5.
What I do know it that operons come differenciated at how many Processors are combinable. so there must be a way to stick them together.
Running unoptimzed code is of course a bore.
Apple shows how a program can be optized running over 12times faster than original - on that same G5 2*2.
It is of course pretty stupid of apple to design 'Velocity engienes' that you have to specifically optimize for.
Why? Because look at all the open source Software, you can compile it all OSX, but almost noone optimizes for a processor - all plain C++.
The Compiler can do a little good, but the for real speed the code has to be optimized by hand.
I have no idea if Opterons scale as good as the G5.
What I do know it that operons come differenciated at how many Processors are combinable. so there must be a way to stick them together.
Running unoptimzed code is of course a bore.
Apple shows how a program can be optized running over 12times faster than original - on that same G5 2*2.
It is of course pretty stupid of apple to design 'Velocity engienes' that you have to specifically optimize for.
Why? Because look at all the open source Software, you can compile it all OSX, but almost noone optimizes for a processor - all plain C++.
The Compiler can do a little good, but the for real speed the code has to be optimized by hand.
Prices
fyi
The only 2 Ghz Opteron right now is the
246 at $794
the 2 indicating that it can be run in a double processor system.
Single processor Operons are as cheap as
144: $256 @1.8 Ghz
Oh - these are 1000Unit prices. Your favorite retailer might add some 10% for himself, + all the taxes...
Oh, and IBM plans to offer Desktops with Opterons... makes me sit and wonder...
fyi
The only 2 Ghz Opteron right now is the
246 at $794
the 2 indicating that it can be run in a double processor system.
Single processor Operons are as cheap as
144: $256 @1.8 Ghz
Oh - these are 1000Unit prices. Your favorite retailer might add some 10% for himself, + all the taxes...
Oh, and IBM plans to offer Desktops with Opterons... makes me sit and wonder...
and how much will the whole system cost? not just the CPU?
about the IBM desktops... do they have all of the other features that make the G5 the 'fastest personal computer', like PCI X, or do they just have the fast CPU, with otherwise crippled technology? are they using Opterons that are faster than the 2GHz G5?
and, if these desktops ARE more powerful than the 2GHz G5, are they cheaper? are they workstation prices or desktop prices?
note that the entire purpose of this thread was to show that the G5 may actually be the fastest personal computer in the world, regardless of Cinebench tests.
Re: MORE TESTS!
I couldn't agree more.
Originally posted by kaneda
I think those PC guys should do more tests!
buy MORE G5 and do some more tests!
I couldn't agree more.
Re: AMD Zone tries to slam the G5
First, there is no 2.2 Ghz Opteron.
Second, the 2 Ghz Opteron definitely will *not* be significantly faster than the 2 Ghz G5 at Cinebench. The Athlon 3200+ can't even beat the 2 Ghz G5 at Cinebench (recompiled for the G5), and I believe the 3200+ is running at 2.2 Ghz. Most of the Opteron enhancements are things like a larger cache and lower latency, higher bandwidth connection to memory, but Cinebench rendering turns out not to be very memory dependent (which means it's actually probably not too representative of "real world" performance, but that is a separate issue). So the bottom line is, don't expect the Opteron to perform much better than the Athlon on this test, clock for clock. I think the figures I have seen are like 10% better or so.
Third, it is very disingenius to claim that Cinebench has not been recompiled for the Opteron 64 bit mode, and that therefore it too is very disadvantaged. The Opteron is very heavily based on the Athlon core, and as such software that has been compiled for the Athlon core (i.e. most of the stuff out there) will run very well on the Opteron. Conversely, recompiling specifically for the Opteron will in general not gain you much. And Cinebench is *not* using 64 bit integers, so running it in "native" 64 bit mode is not going to help much. The reason the G5 is seeing a big speed boost from recompiling Cinebench is not because it is using 64 bit integers, but because the PPC970 core is totally different than the MPC7450 core.
Finally, the AMDZone site is probably the most biased processor advocacy site that I have ever seen. There are a lot of biased Mac and Wintel users, but the guys at AMDZone are completely ridiculous - they don't need a Steve Jobs RDF because they can generate their own personal RDFs without any outside assistance! It's not just the articles, which are quite biased, but the benchmarks too. For example, if you go to their Opteron review, you won't see any Cinebench *rendering* scores. Why? Because the Opteron would lose to the Xeon in this test. So instead they show the Cinebench OpenGL test, which tests the performance of the *video card*, not the processor (and then the Xeon and the Opteron are quite close, because, duh, they have the same video card). But of course they interpret it as a test of processor performance, which it is not, and thus claim that the Opteron is quite close to the Xeon in Cinebench. So either they are incredibly stupid, or very dishonest (or possibly both).
A site like Bare Feats definitely has an affinity for a particular platform (Mac, in this case), but at least Rob is honest - he will show the G4 losing in the tests where it loses (which is, um, quite a few these days).
What the AMDZone people have against the G5 specifically is highly unclear. After all, the main competitor (really, the *only* competitor) to AMD is Intel. Do they really think that Apple is going to steal all the Opteron sales? Highly unlikely. Maybe they are just subconsciously expressing their Windows bias, even though the OS does not really have anything to do with either processor. They certainly seem kind of neurotic.
First, there is no 2.2 Ghz Opteron.
Second, the 2 Ghz Opteron definitely will *not* be significantly faster than the 2 Ghz G5 at Cinebench. The Athlon 3200+ can't even beat the 2 Ghz G5 at Cinebench (recompiled for the G5), and I believe the 3200+ is running at 2.2 Ghz. Most of the Opteron enhancements are things like a larger cache and lower latency, higher bandwidth connection to memory, but Cinebench rendering turns out not to be very memory dependent (which means it's actually probably not too representative of "real world" performance, but that is a separate issue). So the bottom line is, don't expect the Opteron to perform much better than the Athlon on this test, clock for clock. I think the figures I have seen are like 10% better or so.
Third, it is very disingenius to claim that Cinebench has not been recompiled for the Opteron 64 bit mode, and that therefore it too is very disadvantaged. The Opteron is very heavily based on the Athlon core, and as such software that has been compiled for the Athlon core (i.e. most of the stuff out there) will run very well on the Opteron. Conversely, recompiling specifically for the Opteron will in general not gain you much. And Cinebench is *not* using 64 bit integers, so running it in "native" 64 bit mode is not going to help much. The reason the G5 is seeing a big speed boost from recompiling Cinebench is not because it is using 64 bit integers, but because the PPC970 core is totally different than the MPC7450 core.
Finally, the AMDZone site is probably the most biased processor advocacy site that I have ever seen. There are a lot of biased Mac and Wintel users, but the guys at AMDZone are completely ridiculous - they don't need a Steve Jobs RDF because they can generate their own personal RDFs without any outside assistance! It's not just the articles, which are quite biased, but the benchmarks too. For example, if you go to their Opteron review, you won't see any Cinebench *rendering* scores. Why? Because the Opteron would lose to the Xeon in this test. So instead they show the Cinebench OpenGL test, which tests the performance of the *video card*, not the processor (and then the Xeon and the Opteron are quite close, because, duh, they have the same video card). But of course they interpret it as a test of processor performance, which it is not, and thus claim that the Opteron is quite close to the Xeon in Cinebench. So either they are incredibly stupid, or very dishonest (or possibly both).
A site like Bare Feats definitely has an affinity for a particular platform (Mac, in this case), but at least Rob is honest - he will show the G4 losing in the tests where it loses (which is, um, quite a few these days).
What the AMDZone people have against the G5 specifically is highly unclear. After all, the main competitor (really, the *only* competitor) to AMD is Intel. Do they really think that Apple is going to steal all the Opteron sales? Highly unlikely. Maybe they are just subconsciously expressing their Windows bias, even though the OS does not really have anything to do with either processor. They certainly seem kind of neurotic.
Umm, they always pick on the weaker one.... INTEL beats AMD in most tests and no matter how you don't want to hear it, it's true.
Short answer: yes (it is optimized).
Longer answer: the Opteron core is very similar to the Athlon core, so to the extent that it is optimized for Athlon, then it is optimized for Opteron. On the other hand, if Cinema 4D has not yet been optimized for Athlon (4 years after the Athlon was released), then it will never be optimized for Opteron/Athlon. So either way this is pretty much as good as it will get for Opteron. Also note that Cinebench doesn't use 64 bit integers, so there will be little benefit from using Opteron's 64 native mode.
Well that's a yes AND a no.
Intel beat AMD cost/performance? Nope
Does Intel beat AMD at the top end? (i.e. 3200+ vs. 3.2 P4C)
An obvious YES. The 875 chipset was only released this spring! The nforce2 chipset, on the otherhand, has been around for nearly a year now. The 3200+ was probably the biggest slip up by AMD in my opinion--perhaps it was worth maybe 3100+, but even then i don't agree with the performance rating either.
Aside from the top end, AMD will beat Intel for performance when you design a system for <500 dollars.
Current Nforce2 boards, run for maybe 100-110 dollars (Abit NF7-S 2.0) for example.
These practically guarantee that the $90 2500+ will clock to the exorbitantly priced 3200+ that is around $420.
Do you have ANY multiplier control with an Intel chip? Nope. AMD? Yes, multiplier control has been available since the first K7 came out--vital for getting every dollar's worth out of your purchase.
So 90 + 110 = 200. That's a powerful purchase for 200bucks.
Add brand name PSU ($75), 512 stick of twinmos ($115), and an HD to install your OS, let's say a 120GB WD ($108) and your done. AGP card, floppy, optical can be swapped over.
75+115+108 = 298.
The total comes out the around 500 dollars.
Intel has definitely closed the gap with the 2.4C, in terms of OCable chips...the cost differences in the platforms carrying the premium ~150-200 dollars. When you are squeezing under 500, that's alot of money
UMM, dude, i was talking about top performance... The topic was about G5 and AMD and how they stack up to each other.
Obviously 500 dollar computers have nothing to do with this and I still doubt AMD is an obvious winner there.
I was talking not about the price, but performance, and yes like 90% of sites said that 3.2 P4 with Multithreading beats AMD 3200 almost at everything but the price.
I checked those things out when I wanted to configure an alienware computer. They had AURORA with AMD and AREA-51 with Intel... From the value point of view, Aurora came on top as 3200 amd came 300 bucks cheaper (with 100 bucks amd rebate) than 3.2 P4.... But price and performance rarely go foot-n-foot together.
Obviously 500 dollar computers have nothing to do with this and I still doubt AMD is an obvious winner there.
I was talking not about the price, but performance, and yes like 90% of sites said that 3.2 P4 with Multithreading beats AMD 3200 almost at everything but the price.
I checked those things out when I wanted to configure an alienware computer. They had AURORA with AMD and AREA-51 with Intel... From the value point of view, Aurora came on top as 3200 amd came 300 bucks cheaper (with 100 bucks amd rebate) than 3.2 P4.... But price and performance rarely go foot-n-foot together.
ok, no disagreement there. Just had to make sure you were talking from a pure performance point of view.
From a G5 to AMD standpoint is still remains to be proven -- this is depending on whether you're banking on the "applications aren't optimized for the G5 yet" standpoint or that "the opteron is a server chip, the Athlon 64 is what should be compared" standpoint.
Both are wait a see. I don't see how you can automatically assume that AMD can't compete with the G5.
500 dollar comps? Macs have come a long way, but the obvious winner is STILL AMD, not the G5. The entry level G5 comes at a starting price of 1999, +/- with customizations...that kinda money buys a 3.2ghz P4, with the ability to splurge on a 9800pro as well.
From a G5 to AMD standpoint is still remains to be proven -- this is depending on whether you're banking on the "applications aren't optimized for the G5 yet" standpoint or that "the opteron is a server chip, the Athlon 64 is what should be compared" standpoint.
Both are wait a see. I don't see how you can automatically assume that AMD can't compete with the G5.
500 dollar comps? Macs have come a long way, but the obvious winner is STILL AMD, not the G5. The entry level G5 comes at a starting price of 1999, +/- with customizations...that kinda money buys a 3.2ghz P4, with the ability to splurge on a 9800pro as well.
The AMDZone guy seems to be very bitter about Macs. He got all excited a while ago about a rumor that Apple was using an AMD chip in the next PowerMac, and has been bashing Apple ever since he found out it wasn't true. Other than that AMDZone is a decent if somewhat biased page (roughly as biased as most Mac sites, maybe a bit less).
Catfish_man: One thing to note. I remember back in the "old" days of the K7, before the Athlon XP when the HOT-running thunderbirds were the rage, the gigahertz race and all--there was NOT a SINGLE mention of the G4.
I really have no idea why Chris is SO bitter with Apple and the G5 in general. I can only come up with one possible reason--and it probably has something to do with an argument with a Mac head back in July
I'm also wondering if Chris Tom was working with AMDzone.com in those days (2-3 years ago).
Back then AMDzone.com couldn't even bare to mention *ntel on their site.
But those days are long gone *_*
I really have no idea why Chris is SO bitter with Apple and the G5 in general. I can only come up with one possible reason--and it probably has something to do with an argument with a Mac head back in July
I'm also wondering if Chris Tom was working with AMDzone.com in those days (2-3 years ago).
Back then AMDzone.com couldn't even bare to mention *ntel on their site.
But those days are long gone *_*
Well, I didn't say AMD cannot compete with G5, infact it should be interesting. Other than that I agree 100% with ya...