Category: Benchmarks
Link: Charts comparing Dual 2GHz G5 and Dual 1.4GHz G4's. Usual warnings apply (non-production machines, uncontrolled settings)
Posted on MacBytes.com
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.
BareFeats test summary: G5 vs G4
- Thread starter MacBytes
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Category: Benchmarks
Link: Charts comparing Dual 2GHz G5 and Dual 1.4GHz G4's. Usual warnings apply (non-production machines, uncontrolled settings)
Posted on MacBytes.com
Well most of the numbers are good, but the G4 still wins some of the time?
Whats with that?
Especially in Altevec.
Whats with that?
Especially in Altevec.
BareFeats test summary: G5 vs G4
BareFeats compares test results between the 1.42 GHz G4 and the 2 GHz G5.
He doesn't have access to a G5, so he merely sums up other peoples test results. Still interesting though.
http://www.barefeats.com/g5sum.html
Look at the first tabel.
If you look at the CPU benchmark and devide the result by the clock speed, then you see that you get the following benchmark/Hz:
CPU:
G4: 0.12464
G5: 0.1225
So the G5 is actually less efficient per clock cycle.
But then again, the main problem with the G4 was the lack of clock speed and memory bandwidth.
So if we look at the memory benchmark per clock cycle, then we see the following:
G4: 0.1317
G5: 0.1595
So it looks like while the G5 is less efficient per clock cycle, it is much more powerful when it comes to memory access.
So the G5 really solves the 2 main drawbacks of the G4.
BareFeats compares test results between the 1.42 GHz G4 and the 2 GHz G5.
He doesn't have access to a G5, so he merely sums up other peoples test results. Still interesting though.
http://www.barefeats.com/g5sum.html
Look at the first tabel.
If you look at the CPU benchmark and devide the result by the clock speed, then you see that you get the following benchmark/Hz:
CPU:
G4: 0.12464
G5: 0.1225
So the G5 is actually less efficient per clock cycle.
But then again, the main problem with the G4 was the lack of clock speed and memory bandwidth.
So if we look at the memory benchmark per clock cycle, then we see the following:
G4: 0.1317
G5: 0.1595
So it looks like while the G5 is less efficient per clock cycle, it is much more powerful when it comes to memory access.
So the G5 really solves the 2 main drawbacks of the G4.
*tear* *sniff*
That's beautiful.
Lets wait until software is 64-bit optimized and see where the real advantages are.
Emails and MS Word will be faster than a speeding bullet.
That's beautiful.
Lets wait until software is 64-bit optimized and see where the real advantages are.
Emails and MS Word will be faster than a speeding bullet.
M.O. as well ;-)Originally posted by Abstract
*tear* *sniff*
That's beautiful.
Lets wait until software is 64-bit optimized and see where the real advantages are.
come on apple, bring us 64 bit optimized code.
BTW, I was showing my TFT iMac to my brother last night. I told him that a 800MHz is not slow, but also not blazingly fast.
I showed him iPhoto and thought 'hot damn, this is going really slow'. I looked at my brother and I saw him thinking 'Jeez, that is a really crappy slow machine'. Then we started web browsing and it was also slow. I was puzzled by this, I know iPhoto can be a real pain, but Safari?
So I started Terminal and ran 'top'. Guess what? Camino was stuck in something and taking 70% CPU power :-(
After killing Camino suddenly everything went really fast. It was an amazing difference
Anyway, he did some work editting a DV movie on the PC and he was really impressed by iMovie. Not only it's ease of use, but also the render speed for special effects. He works with Premiere on a 2.5GHz P4 and he thinks that my iMac renders transitions and special effects faster. He thinks that iMovie is a bit limited though (which it is), but really good for an app that you get with your OS.
Ehm, point is, I'm really curious about FCE running on that dual 2 GHz machine))
I showed him iPhoto and thought 'hot damn, this is going really slow'. I looked at my brother and I saw him thinking 'Jeez, that is a really crappy slow machine'. Then we started web browsing and it was also slow. I was puzzled by this, I know iPhoto can be a real pain, but Safari?
So I started Terminal and ran 'top'. Guess what? Camino was stuck in something and taking 70% CPU power :-(
After killing Camino suddenly everything went really fast. It was an amazing difference
Anyway, he did some work editting a DV movie on the PC and he was really impressed by iMovie. Not only it's ease of use, but also the render speed for special effects. He works with Premiere on a 2.5GHz P4 and he thinks that my iMac renders transitions and special effects faster. He thinks that iMovie is a bit limited though (which it is), but really good for an app that you get with your OS.
Ehm, point is, I'm really curious about FCE running on that dual 2 GHz machine
))
Didn't the Mac BU claim that Office X is more advanced than Office XP? If so I guess there are some advantages of running M$ software on a Mac (not that I do, of course).
Forget Office. If you want to do word processing and spreadsheets and **** then you're perfectly well off with an 800 MHz iMac, as long as you have enough memory.
It's memory intensive applications that the G5 will shine.
It's memory intensive applications that the G5 will shine.
I also have a Sony cd player, but I don't only play cd's released by Sony music on it.
Some of us don't use Macs because of our hate for Microsoft. Office X is a solid product and and requires no guesswork as to whether it's compatible with the windows version. If you like Openoffice better, good for you.
I don't use a Mac because I hate MicroSoft -- I use a Mac because I hate mediocrity.
I do have MS Office on my TiBook. And, generally, I don't use it.
I do most wordprocessing on Nisus Writer's beta version -- and they should really get their act together about releasing the full version of their new OS X version. But Nisus has always been a sleek, powerful program -- far superior to Word.
<ot>
If Apple is thinking of putting together an office suite based on Keynote, buying out Nisus to give it a full-blown supreme word processor would be a great step.
</ot>
I do have MS Office on my TiBook. And, generally, I don't use it.
I do most wordprocessing on Nisus Writer's beta version -- and they should really get their act together about releasing the full version of their new OS X version. But Nisus has always been a sleek, powerful program -- far superior to Word.
<ot>
If Apple is thinking of putting together an office suite based on Keynote, buying out Nisus to give it a full-blown supreme word processor would be a great step.
</ot>
If Apple releases Apple Office/iOffice/whatever containing a good word processor/Filemaker express/Keynote that is compatible with Office XP documents by the time I return to classes, I'll buy it. Otherwise, Office is the best available option. Are their other options? I've used both Open Officer and Think Free Office and wasn't too impressed. Theres the AppleWorks/Keynote combo too, but that might not give me compatibility with the latest version of office for the PC. Yes, when you're in college that is rather important.
Okay, getting back to the orginal topic. I'm far from surprised. The G4 was always a fast chip. It suffered from severe memory limitations & due to Motorolla, never reached its full potential. It's possible that with a modern DDR FSB, the G4 might be faster than the G5.
Okay, getting back to the orginal topic. I'm far from surprised. The G4 was always a fast chip. It suffered from severe memory limitations & due to Motorolla, never reached its full potential. It's possible that with a modern DDR FSB, the G4 might be faster than the G5.
Say what? G4 with a fast FSB >= G5 ? Give me a break! This is how bogus information gets started. The G4 can have 16 instructions in flight at any point in time. The G5 can have *216* instructions in flight. The G5 has twice the number of execution units of the G4. The G5 has a branch prediction unit that is significantly more advanced than the G4. These are just the highlights.
You are drawing conclusions based on benchmarks like Xbench that haven't even been compiled for the G5; they're running G4 code on the G5.
If you want a reasonable benchmark to compare the G4 to the G5 in terms of pure processor, check out the NASA tests posted on this forum. The tester also points out the impact of G5 optimized code on the test results.
In short, ill informed people shouldn't make statments like this; go do your homework.
MisterMe:
Didn't know you worked at McDonalds.
/dev/null
------------------------------------------------------------
idea_hamster:
I like your attitude.
------------------------------------------------------------
OpenOffice or StarOffice is in most cases better than Office itself.
Believe me, i've used both in FreeBSD for a long time and you don't need MS Office.
I really don't understand people using Microsoft software with their Mac's when there are alternatives.
Hey, if you use Microsoft, why don't you buy a PC then instead?
Correct me if i'm wrong but i don't see the reason to use a Mac with Microsoft software....
Hell, buy a PC instead.
Didn't know you worked at McDonalds.
/dev/null
------------------------------------------------------------
idea_hamster:
I like your attitude.
------------------------------------------------------------
OpenOffice or StarOffice is in most cases better than Office itself.
Believe me, i've used both in FreeBSD for a long time and you don't need MS Office.
I really don't understand people using Microsoft software with their Mac's when there are alternatives.
Hey, if you use Microsoft, why don't you buy a PC then instead?
Correct me if i'm wrong but i don't see the reason to use a Mac with Microsoft software....
Hell, buy a PC instead.
Originally posted by Flowbee
I also have a Sony cd player, but I don't only play cd's released by Sony music on it.
Some of us don't use Macs because of our hate for Microsoft. Office X is a solid product and and requires no guesswork as to whether it's compatible with the windows version. If you like Openoffice better, good for you.
It's not about hate, it's about bad software code.
Excatly, you don't need a brain to use Office X, correct, does that make the product any better? NO...
Why do you use a Mac then? you only bought it because you like the design better than a PC or what?
I don't get the point here, don't make me think what i really think it is about, the design and not the hardware.
Until the "alternatives" become standard issue for corporations, educational facilities and other venues with tech support issues, people will continue to use what they use at work - Microsoft Office.
Most people will not want to put out the effort to learn something new that they'll only use at home.
Let's not turn this into a Mac zealotry, MS bashing issue when it's not one.
Most people will not want to put out the effort to learn something new that they'll only use at home.
Let's not turn this into a Mac zealotry, MS bashing issue when it's not one.
arstechnica.com has some pretty good articles about the ppc970. According to their latest article, the 970's VMX unit is more robust than they orginally thought. It's more robust than the original G4, but not as robust as the G4e. That's what I got out of it. For technical details, read:
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/ppc970/ppc970-0.html
and
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/03q2/ppc970-interview/ppc970-interview-1.html
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/ppc970/ppc970-0.html
and
http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/03q2/ppc970-interview/ppc970-interview-1.html
I doubt the G4 would beat the G5 in most speed tests when the G5 is properly optimized (running Panther and whatnot), even if the G4 gets a core update and faster FSB, etc.
However, the G4 could be a very nice consumer end chip. If the 7457 has a DDR bus instead of SDR, and utilizes a 200MHZ or faster FSB while increasing the L2 cache to 512K, then it should be nice on the consumer end. I think Moto may be able to make consumer level chips for the Mac - and if they move to .09 early next year, as is rumored, then Apple could have both the pro and consumer level chips manufactured using hte .09 process. I see the G4 getting worked on a bit - maybe by Apple/Moto/IBM putting their heads together, allowing them to make a much better consumer level chip. That is until late next year when the G5 should be superceded on the pro level and the 970 will become consumer end.
However, the G4 could be a very nice consumer end chip. If the 7457 has a DDR bus instead of SDR, and utilizes a 200MHZ or faster FSB while increasing the L2 cache to 512K, then it should be nice on the consumer end. I think Moto may be able to make consumer level chips for the Mac - and if they move to .09 early next year, as is rumored, then Apple could have both the pro and consumer level chips manufactured using hte .09 process. I see the G4 getting worked on a bit - maybe by Apple/Moto/IBM putting their heads together, allowing them to make a much better consumer level chip. That is until late next year when the G5 should be superceded on the pro level and the 970 will become consumer end.
It is called practicality. Use what works for yourself, and for others. Seems kind of silly to "fight the opressors" by using OOo (which I do use at home on linux) only to save and trade the files in MS Word format. Office v.X is a decent product. It needs a few things (db) of course... but it is 100% compatible with Office for Windows (in theory). OOo is not. Embed a image and a portion of a spreadsheet into a .doc file and save it using MS Office 2k (windows). Nows open the same file with OOo (Windows). Notice that the formatting is not the same, especially with the image file. Basically, your company letterhead with a nice logo, can not be viewed correctly by OOo. Silly stuff like this (Office 2k is not new...) is what keeps OOo from becoming feasibly usable. MS Office owns the market. 94% (or something close to it) market saturation is not good. It is very bad. It WILL NOT CHANGE until there is a common, open source (probably), file format for all types of documents. This would include the various MS Office pieces (writer, spreadsheet, db, presentations, etc) as well as pdf type thing. I highly doubt this will happen anytime soon. Maybe if we reach a Star Trek type situation (all computers the same, no different OS or hardware other than based on age -- version 1, 2, etc) it will happen. We live in a fractured society, and until that stops...Originally posted by Likvid
It's not about hate, it's about bad software code.
Excatly, you don't need a brain to use Office X, correct, does that make the product any better? NO...
Why do you use a Mac then? you only bought it because you like the design better than a PC or what?
I don't get the point here, don't make me think what i really think it is about, the design and not the hardware.
There are more things under heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio.--William Shakespeare in Hamlet
You assume that because people use M$ products, they don't use alternatives. You assume wrong.
Don't you think that Mac users know better how to spend their money than do you?
OK, you're wrong. None is so blind as he who will not see.
I'm not getting into this pointless Office argument, but I did want to comment on an earlier comment on 64-bit optimized code.
64-bit, for the most part doesn't matter. It's been said dozens of times by dozens of people but the average application has no need for the kind of memory allocation (>2 or 4GB) a 64-bit app can provide, and that's more or less all it's good for. Statisticians and hardcore math/3D people will probably be happy, though.
However... there's a lot more to the G5 than it's being 64-bit, and it does run differently than a G4. So there is a lot of optimization for the G5 that can be done, and that will, I expect, provide a significant advantage in per-Mhz speed, even putting memory bandwidth issues aside. Those optimizations have little or nothing to do with being 64 bit, though.
Anyway, the BareFeats results aren't wildly promising, but they're actually a bit more encouraging than they look; the processor benchmarks are more or less clock-for clock with the G4. What that really means is the G5 can run just as fast as a G4 per clock, even without any G5 optimization. Put proper G5 optimization in there, and then you're looking at benchmarks more like NASA's, which will be cool.
It's certainly a step up from the first gen P4s, when the deep pipelines made it slower in real world terms than "slower" P3s.
[I qualify my comments with the fact that I'm not a processor architecture expert and could be entirely wrong.]
64-bit, for the most part doesn't matter. It's been said dozens of times by dozens of people but the average application has no need for the kind of memory allocation (>2 or 4GB) a 64-bit app can provide, and that's more or less all it's good for. Statisticians and hardcore math/3D people will probably be happy, though.
However... there's a lot more to the G5 than it's being 64-bit, and it does run differently than a G4. So there is a lot of optimization for the G5 that can be done, and that will, I expect, provide a significant advantage in per-Mhz speed, even putting memory bandwidth issues aside. Those optimizations have little or nothing to do with being 64 bit, though.
Anyway, the BareFeats results aren't wildly promising, but they're actually a bit more encouraging than they look; the processor benchmarks are more or less clock-for clock with the G4. What that really means is the G5 can run just as fast as a G4 per clock, even without any G5 optimization. Put proper G5 optimization in there, and then you're looking at benchmarks more like NASA's, which will be cool.
It's certainly a step up from the first gen P4s, when the deep pipelines made it slower in real world terms than "slower" P3s.
[I qualify my comments with the fact that I'm not a processor architecture expert and could be entirely wrong.]
Originally posted by Likvid
It's not about hate, it's about bad software code.
Excatly, you don't need a brain to use Office X, correct, does that make the product any better? NO...
Why do you use a Mac then? you only bought it because you like the design better than a PC or what?
I don't get the point here, don't make me think what i really think it is about, the design and not the hardware.
I ran OpenOffice under X11 for about three months then I gave in and ran Office vX and I don't regret the change.
Why?
OpenOffice is an impressive project. But under X11 its slow, clunky and feels like a bloody PC program. I ran OS X because I feel its a superior OS experience. OpenOffice doesn't have that - but Office vX does. Office vX is probably the best version of Office I've used since Word 5.
When OpenOffice releases their Aqua build in Q2 next year, then I'll reconsider, until then Office vX is good for me.