I can't believe the g4 won in any of the tests. This is unacceptable. Let's just hope that with "optimized" code, the G5 will kick the snot out of the G4 in every single way.
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
The G4 didn't "win" any tests. These benchmarks are compiled from various sources, not head-to-head tests of the two machines.
From BareFeats:
"Even though I haven't got my hands on a G5 yet, I'm starting to compile some test results that others have collected on the G5/2GHz MP to compare to the test results we have observed from the G4/1.42GHz MP in our lab..."
Let's not get too worked up until we have the production G5's to test against the G4's.
Until real world comparison comes out, those numbers mean little, at least to me. When performances of specific apps (Photoshops and such) are compared in those machines by third party observer (Not Apple) then I'll be convinced of performance advantage or disadvantage between G4 and G5.
Anyway, like I said, the main advantage of the G5 will lie in memory intensive applications, like video editting.
My brother thought that iMovie on a 800 MHz iMac was speedy compared to his 2.6 GHz PC, so you can imagine that FCP on a dual 2GHz G5 will fly.
Maybe Pixar will switch to G5s as well
My brother thought that iMovie on a 800 MHz iMac was speedy compared to his 2.6 GHz PC, so you can imagine that FCP on a dual 2GHz G5 will fly.
Maybe Pixar will switch to G5s as well
The G4 is a very fast, efficient chip - its just (unfortunately) limited by various other issues.
Oh, and BTW, going to 64bits isn't going to make you run twice as fast. It don't work like that.
The g4 is not a bad chip, it just moto has had problems getting them to higher clocks & current bus limitations. I would like to see a single 1.4 g4 vs 1.6 g5. Im sure the 1.6 would spank it but by how much? If anyone may be wondering i xbenched my 1.4 upgrade in my quicksilver and it has xbenched 113.76 .
For pure calculations the G5 would probably not be much faster than the G4.
But if you also need to process a lot of data, the G5 would be a lot faster.
But if you also need to process a lot of data, the G5 would be a lot faster.
anyways its good to see apple making progress, the g5's will only be getting faster as will the g4's. i would bet a 1.25 imac soon, and just read a great article on the emac 1 gig in mac addict. i would say g5, g4 at 1gig or better and you cant go wrong.
Office...not to change the topic...
...but the one thing that drives me nuts about Office x (other than not importing Office 98 preferences, glossaries, dictionaries, etc.) is that all the keyboard equivalents have changed and are apparently NOT changeable, at least in Office. Office's slash-key-for-key-commands feature appears to have been dropped, as well. Does anyone know how to get these back?
...but the one thing that drives me nuts about Office x (other than not importing Office 98 preferences, glossaries, dictionaries, etc.) is that all the keyboard equivalents have changed and are apparently NOT changeable, at least in Office. Office's slash-key-for-key-commands feature appears to have been dropped, as well. Does anyone know how to get these back?
ok first a quick comment:
People are easy to dismiss these scores as "not a real world test" and such. Yet the same kind of tests done v.s. a PC are taken as gold. I don't get it.
Anyway...
The G5 has a 23 stage pipeline, thats 3 longer than the P4. The G4 has like what? 7? 8? I honestly don't know, but is a lot less than 23. Depending on what kind of code was run on the G4 and G5, you could get widly different scores. If it was a bunch of easily predictable loops, then the G5 would win. If its some random code that is running and the G5 has to flush its pipeline, then its gonna run slower. If the code and data will fit in the G4's L1-3 cache, its gonna run faster. If its got to go to memory a lot, G5 is gonna win. It doesn't surprise me that the G5 doesn't win in everything. What I'd be interested in is a G5 1.6 or 1.7 vs a dual 1.42 G4. The G5 isn't going to win in those tests, and I think thats the reason that suddenly the 1.25 is the only G4 you can still buy from apple.
People are easy to dismiss these scores as "not a real world test" and such. Yet the same kind of tests done v.s. a PC are taken as gold. I don't get it.
Anyway...
The G5 has a 23 stage pipeline, thats 3 longer than the P4. The G4 has like what? 7? 8? I honestly don't know, but is a lot less than 23. Depending on what kind of code was run on the G4 and G5, you could get widly different scores. If it was a bunch of easily predictable loops, then the G5 would win. If its some random code that is running and the G5 has to flush its pipeline, then its gonna run slower. If the code and data will fit in the G4's L1-3 cache, its gonna run faster. If its got to go to memory a lot, G5 is gonna win. It doesn't surprise me that the G5 doesn't win in everything. What I'd be interested in is a G5 1.6 or 1.7 vs a dual 1.42 G4. The G5 isn't going to win in those tests, and I think thats the reason that suddenly the 1.25 is the only G4 you can still buy from apple.
Or maybe they went with the 1.25 because they are cheaper...after all, the 1.42 is probably an overclocked 1.25, and I can see all sorts of additional expenses with that... but I'm hoping the dual-G4 is nearly as fast as the 1.6 G5 since I've ordered one!
The only reason Office v.X is dissed is because it is a MS product. I will defend it and say it is an excellent product. I use it all the time and it works well. I teach in a school that is all PC's and it works perfect going from the PC's to the Mac and vise versa. Some people will deal with all kinds of problems and settings to make things compatible just so they don't have any MS products on their Mac. That is fine for them, but for me, I like to just save and open with the exact same results everytime no matter what platform I am using with no worry.
There are other reasons to dis Office. #1 is price. #2 is Access - it stinks but is the standard and they will not port it to the Mac. #3 is the lack of keyboard equivalents in Office x. #4 is the way Office x does not bring in preferences from Office 98. And then of course there's the abysmal charting/graphing.
We had a rep from the Mac Business Unit show up to our Mac User Group monthly meeting. He said Access for the Mac would have taken them more time to port to the Mac than a century. They did a feasibility study. I find that hard to believe, but that was their excuse. The wealthiest company in the world can hire enough people to program a century of programming in a year. What's wrong with that picture?
Sounds like the windows version of access was developed by putting a million monkeys in a room full of computers...
Well...I'll say this...Access is very badly written. It is extremely slow and always has been (try running side by side with Paradox!), and seems buggy as well. I say this after using it quite a bit on the Windows side since it's free, and you can't argue that spending three times the time on the project will cost more than $100. "But what would happen if you left?" Well, I left, and still maintain their Access stuff...because nobody else knows it!
Anyway, back to the point. I'd guess Access is largely built on VisualBasic, and if VisualBasic isn't on the Mac, they'd have to start from scratch, and would end up with something better and faster than Access for Windows. But one version behind which would be a fatal flaw since Access' file format changes iwth every version, and no going back!
Time for a ground-up rewrite of Access in C so they can port it!
I don't know about Access now, but soon after it was released originally, it was a disaster. Early adopters lost a lot of data when they tried to use it. It is no coincidence that M$ bought dBase clone FoxPro after it released Access.
I would guess that Access is not built on VisualBasic, at least no more so than M$ Excel. IIRC, Access was around before VB became as important as it is now. It is true that VB is not a standalone development system on the Mac. However, VB is on the Mac as part of Office v.X in the form of VB for Applications.
Well I mean from the limited testing you can't get much from this data.
I will see when my apple store gets them in and test em.
I will see when my apple store gets them in and test em.