Fastest G5 Power Macs versus fastest Windows PCs Who Wins?


edesignuk

Moderator emeritus
Mar 25, 2002
19,077
1
London, England
Impressive stuff, especially considering how old the dual 2.5GHz now is (it was announced what, almost a year ago?).

:cool:

Dual 3's please Steve ;) :D :rolleyes:
 

igucl

macrumors 6502a
Oct 11, 2003
569
17
the dual 2.5 may have been announced a year ago, but a friend of mine jut got his a couple months ago, after waiting an outrageously unreasonable amount of time.
 

Chimera

macrumors 6502
Oct 29, 2004
256
0
Surrey, England
Great to see the G5 do so well in the CPU tests, beating dual Xeons which also have higher clock rates is impressive, but on the flip side the graphics tests are disappointing but not much anyone can do apart from the developers on that front.

One interesting thing is that the G5 wasn't top on the photoshop tests (the MP ones), isn't that supprising since photoshop is Altivec optimized?
 

edesignuk

Moderator emeritus
Mar 25, 2002
19,077
1
London, England
igucl said:
the dual 2.5 may have been announced a year ago, but a friend of mine jut got his a couple months ago, after waiting an outrageously unreasonable amount of time.
That's a whole other issue...don't get me started.
 

slipper

macrumors 68000
Nov 19, 2003
1,539
29
It wasnt a matter of processor speed, it was a matter of the game maker optimizing for the G5 processor and dual processor configuration. On the other hand Steve promised us 3ghz a year ago :eek:
 

brap

macrumors 68000
May 10, 2004
1,701
0
Nottingham
Chimera said:
Great to see the G5 do so well in the CPU tests, beating dual Xeons which also have higher clock rates is impressive, but on the flip side the graphics tests are disappointing but not much anyone can do apart from the developers on that front.
All this proves is one GPU is no match for two (even if it is a botch job).
One interesting thing is that the G5 wasn't top on the photoshop tests (the MP ones), isn't that supprising since photoshop is Altivec optimized?
I seem to remember hearing that the G5 was nowhere near as efficient as the G4 with Altivec ops. Sounds reasonable, since it's native G4 technology bolted onto the IBM chip... also, I'm quite sure Photoshop will be SSE/2 (perhaps 3) optimised. No outrageous advantages here.
 

rosalindavenue

macrumors 6502a
Dec 13, 2003
837
213
Virginia, USA
Chimera said:
One interesting thing is that the G5 wasn't top on the photoshop tests (the MP ones), isn't that supprising since photoshop is Altivec optimized?
No. My understanding is that adobe (and macromedia [e.g. dreamweaver] for that matter) are porting code from their windows versions to their OSX versions in a lot of their apps. So the code isn't optimized for mac and its slower.
 

mad jew

Moderator emeritus
Apr 3, 2004
32,194
6
Adelaide, Australia
Firstly, edesignuk, your avatar is really creepy. Sorry, I just had to get that out of the road.

Secondly, and more on the topic, surely these aren't the top PCs. I don't keep up with the hardware side of the x86 gear but I swear I've seen better specs advertised in various media. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though.
 

jaromski

macrumors regular
Jun 18, 2004
150
0
zion
why didn't they bench the dual G5 against something more substantial in the x86 department, say a dualie opteron system?

don't get me wrong, i love macs but at the high-end i am biased towards the x86 gear. i can hand pick each component for my specific needs. plus i can put a 64-bit LinuxOS on it and watch it really scream. when will they release a 64-bit OS/X again? but i guess it just depends what you will be doing with your rig in the end game.

doesn't mean i wouldn't enjoy a brand-new dual G5 system on my desk- the benchmarks just seem dubious because they didn't set it against a more substantial x86 setup.

-jaromski
 

varmit

macrumors 68000
Aug 5, 2003
1,830
0
Yes, its Apples and Oranges again. People are complaining about the memory were not the fastest you could put in the AMD box, blah blah blah. Just put it this way, with what you can go to the store and buy, the Mac can keep up, if not beat, PCs with what both sides have today. That was the point of this benching.
 

wrldwzrd89

macrumors G5
Jun 6, 2003
12,106
73
Solon, OH
The G5 clearly lives up to its reputation as a serious number cruncher in these tests. Some of the graphics tests for the Mac scored significantly lower than they should have (I'm not implying that the testing method was flawed), suggesting that the Mac code isn't optimized, Apple's graphics card drivers aren't optimized, or both.
 

daveL

macrumors 68020
Jun 18, 2003
2,425
0
Montana
igucl said:
the dual 2.5 may have been announced a year ago, but a friend of mine jut got his a couple months ago, after waiting an outrageously unreasonable amount of time.
First, they were announced in June of last year, which is a far cry from a year ago (8 months, by my reckoning). Second, I wasn't one of the first to order, but I've had mine since mid-September of last year. Apple's ability to deliver products is bad enough without exaggerating. Of course, I live in the US, and I know a lot of you don't, so I'm sure that enters into the equation.
 

Mav451

macrumors 68000
Jul 1, 2003
1,657
0
Maryland
64 bit Athlon 2.2GHz = 3GB of 333MHz DDR
Ok, wtf is going on here? They lost all of their credibility on this one. With the AMD64's IMC, losing that kind of bandwidth to the CPU is huge. Either Barefeats went out of their way to sabotage it, or they were pretty stupid.

Either way, I stopped reading it, and pretty much discredited whatever they said above. What a ****in joke.
 

wrldwzrd89

macrumors G5
Jun 6, 2003
12,106
73
Solon, OH
Mav451 said:
Ok, wtf is going on here? They lost all of their credibility on this one. With the AMD64's IMC, losing that kind of bandwidth to the CPU is huge. Either Barefeats went out of their way to sabotage it, or they were pretty stupid.

Either way, I stopped reading it, and pretty much discredited whatever they said above. What a ****in joke.
Hey Mav451 - look here. The Athlon 64 doesn't support DDR 400.
 

Mav451

macrumors 68000
Jul 1, 2003
1,657
0
Maryland

wrldwzrd89

macrumors G5
Jun 6, 2003
12,106
73
Solon, OH

eric_n_dfw

macrumors 68000
Jan 2, 2002
1,507
55
DFW, TX, USA
jaromski said:
why didn't they bench the dual G5 against something more substantial in the x86 department, say a dualie opteron system?
Maybe they added this after you read the article?

barefeats web site said:
February 18th, 2005, 2PM Pacific TIme -- Dual Opteron 2GHz results were removed at the request of iXcomputer, the company that loaned us the system a year ago. Instead, they are letting us test a more current model with Single and Double 2.6GHz processor PCI-Express bus.
 

JordanNZ

macrumors 6502a
Apr 29, 2004
669
101
Auckland, New Zealand
Not supprised at the poor game scores... Shows how bad the mac ports are. It's a shame Graeme Devine isn't at ID software anymore..

That guy is amazing. No idea how Doom3 on the mac will run without his talent.
 

ZildjianKX

macrumors 68000
May 18, 2003
1,610
0
No surprise about most of the game scores, considering most of those games (except Quake 3) were DirectX. Doom 3 should be a good bench since both versions are OpenGL.
 

Mav451

macrumors 68000
Jul 1, 2003
1,657
0
Maryland
wrldwzrd89 said:
Well that's funny. Why does the AMD site not mention DDR400 support? Maybe the page I looked at is simply out of date...
Ok so you seriously didn't know, that's ok. But yes, that page is WAY out of date ;)

(the last DDR333 processor from AMD was 3000+, before it moved to the 400FSB version).
 

SiliconAddict

macrumors 603
Jun 19, 2003
5,889
0
Chicago, IL
I find it funny that barefeats promised that more tests against the Pentium M would follow after their first initial tests back in fall of '03 where the PowerBook was completely thrashed. Since there not a single peep from them. Huh. I wonder why. :rolleyes:
 

Mav451

macrumors 68000
Jul 1, 2003
1,657
0
Maryland
SiliconAddict said:
I find it funny that barefeats promised that more tests against the Pentium M would follow after their first initial tests back in fall of '03 where the PowerBook was completely thrashed. Since there not a single peep from them. Huh. I wonder why. :rolleyes:
Pentium M can straight up compete with the desktop A64's, yes, even the 939's. Coming from me, as an AMD user, says alot.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/dfi-855gme-mgf/index.x?pg=12
(right under a 3.6E Prescott in Pshop).

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/dfi-855gme-mgf/index.x?pg=8
(UT2k4 - right under a 3.4E Prescott).

Only problem is the high cost. Too bad for Intel, I guess :D
>> One, the mini-ATX board that fits the Pentium M is $230
>> Two, the chip itself is even higher around $430's.
CPU/mobo = $660? Ehh...(limiting it to high-end setups).

An AMD PCI-E board averages $130-140, with the 3500+ averaging $240-270 (the latter being the cooler, higher-OCing 90nm version).