Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

G5-1.6ghz Vs. AMD's initial tests

C

cgereu

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jul 24, 2002
5
0
USA
Hi,
Here is a test I did in Photoshop 7.0 and LightWave 3D 7.5 rendering

These are not benchmarks or anything tech, just really "monkeying" around.

Out of the box G5-1.6Ghz Single Processor upgraded to 1Gb of RAM (you know the rest of the specs).

AMD Athlon XP 1.7Ghz (14 months old) with 1GB of PC2700 RAM and nVIDIA Quadro 4 750XGL Card, from xicomputer

I also have other machines here, Dual Xeons 2.4's and 2.8's with Quadro 980 cards from BoxxTech and Dell, as well as one Dual AMD Opteron (64bit) 244 with Quadra FX1000 card from xicomputer.

I decided to test G5 against the slowest PC I'm using, the 1.7Ghz single processor AMD XP running WIN XP Pro.

I'm not going to go into Photoshop tests details, but it involved manipulating a 50" x 50" RGB image at 72 dpi. That's a 37.1 MB file. I did all kinds of things a power Photoshop user would do or does on a daily basis.

On average G5-1.6Ghz was anywhere between 4 times slower to only 15%-25% slower. I think the worst was when I ceated new layer, applied render clouds and rotated it 45 degrees. G5 took 6 seconds to render clouds, and 21 sec to rotate, where AMD XP 1.7 tool 1.8sec to render clouds and 9 seconds to rotate. I did bunch of other things involving scaling, rotating, applying some filters, copying layers 10 times, linking them, rotating scaling again.
I really expected G5 to catch up to AMD's but no luck in this case.

The render I setup in LightWave 3D took 2:47 on G5 1.6, 1:50 on AMD XP 1.7 and just for kicks Dual AMD Opteron rendered it in 28 seconds, that's only with 512MB RAM cause 4GB RAM upgrade hasn't arrived yet.

I'm looking forward to test Dual G5 - 2Ghz.

thanks for reading
:)

PS. I am a MAC user (since early 90's), I was forced to start using PC's mainly cause of performance issues in 3D work, and I really like OSX.
 
Does this mean then that the G5s are dog slow with Jaguar and is only going to shine with Panther, or does it mean that Photoshop etc also needs to be adapted to take advantage of the wizzy new architecture?

I have read a lot of techy threads but I dont really understand the vocab!
 
Hmmm.....
Nothin' optimized here, so to speak... :(

Any idea if this is purely hardware speed related? Or maybe that the software used isn't quite optimized for the G5 yet?
Ofcourse, I hope the latter..... I mean, the G5 has just arrived, and only Adobe's Photoshop 7 "G5 optimizer' has been noted as application software which has been altered for use of the G5....
Do you have the opportunity to run the same test on a Dual 1.25 or 1.42 GHz G4???
Maybe Panther will help???
 
The software, both Photoshop 7 and Lightwave 3D 7.5 are not G5 optimized. I'm sure and I hope the performance will increase. We have a 64Bit System here running 32 bit OS and 32 bit apps not optimized at all, so there are going to be problems.

Same deal with AMD, I'm running 32bit OS with 32 bit apps, that are somewhat optimized.

The Dual Opteron is a 64bit machine, but currently it's running 32bit WIN2000 Pro and non non opimized software.

It will be interesting to see full 64 setups inluding OS's and software, both Dual G5's and Dual AMD Opterons.
 
there is a g5 plugin for photoshop. install it and see if it makes a difference.

iJon
 
Yeah, its good someone ran the test WITHOUT this plugin. So now, we can see if this plugin really makes a difference, and by how much. :)
 
Don't disregard the fact that the Qaudro FX is a 3D rendering Pro card, sooooo in the Lightwave 3d rendering the G5 was at a severe disadvantage. In PS you definitley need to download the plugin before you even go anywhere near benchmarks. :)
 
I'm not trying to be contentious here - but man you re-define 'power user' why would you need all of those different machines?

Just me being a little suspicious - sorry if this is for real.
 
Ok, the plugin for Photoshop has made a difference, but only slightly noticeable. I don't really have time right now to play with it. It's not changing the fact G5 1.6Ghz is still way behind an old, 14 months old AMD XP 2100+ (1.7Ghz) machine, which you can builf for less then $400. You can also buy XP 3200+ which is significantly faster, not to mention MP's and Opterons that are way ahead of the speed game. That kind of makes me dissapointed I must admit, I was hoping for G5 to... well, SMOKE!!! since I would love to use LightWave, Combustion and After Effects on OSX instead of WinBlows. Another person at my work has a rev1. G4 Dual 1Ghz with 1.5GB or RAM who has little time to play around, it was slightly faster then G5-1.6Ghz in the same Photoshop 7 operations.

To asnwer to the last comment, yeah Quadro Cards and especially FX cards from nVIDIA are designed for 3D work, native open GL... amazing cards, really. With an FX card it feel like SGI ( and I had an opportunity to see and play with new SGI Tezro's as well, running Discreet Flame and Smoke). Unfortunately all new G5 ship with, well... crappy cards compared to Quadro's and FX. How can we call G5 a professional graphics workstation when the actually cards are far from being what I would consider professional.

Please APPLE... ask nVIDIA nicely (pay them) to get Quadro and FX cards ported to OSX!!

I know some of you will want to run Discreet Combustion or Apple Shake on G5's, Combustion for instance takes an advantage of Quadro cards on PC, it makes a huge, huge difference, believe me. I run it on Dual G4's and PC's going back and forth, and it was pretty painful to go back to G4 and do anything with uncompressed D1 footage (that's 720x486)
Again, I WOULD LOVE to run these apps and work on OSX, but after my initial "G5 play" I'm getting concerned.
 
KIWI TODD, all these computers are at my work. I only have one computer at home :)
I used power user term lossely, has nothing to do with anything. I guess a phraze some people use.

I have no intention to cause arguments or a "war" between MAC and PC users, I think OSX and MAC's are great regardless the speed or issues. I like OSX and I think XP Pro is OK to use.

I just want to share the speed tests that are strictly regular daily use, not some techy benchmarks. I'm doing this out my own curiosity cause simpy, I wanted to know too...

thanks ;-)
 
Originally posted by cgereu
Ok, the plugin for Photoshop has made a difference, but only slightly noticeable. I don't really have time right now to play with it. It's not changing the fact G5 1.6Ghz is still way behind an old, 14 months old AMD XP 2100+ (1.7Ghz) machine, which you can builf for less then $400. You can also buy XP 3200+ which is significantly faster, not to mention MP's and Opterons that are way ahead of the speed game. That kind of makes me dissapointed I must admit, I was hoping for G5 to... well, SMOKE!!!
Click to expand...

Man, this is some pretty bad news if its true. I was so pissed about Apple stiffing us on powerbooks that I was about to order a G5... I think I might wait awhile after reading your insights. Thanks for the tests.
 
Interesting test results. They seem to confirm previous tests that showed HUGE differences in the speed of the G5 depending on which Photoshop function was undertaken.

The cause could be either lack of software optimization for the G5 or just, well, great speed variance. The latter point, if true, could have to do with the G5 being an all-new architecture that is highly optimized for specialized functions (I sense more and more functions are moving from software to chip). Either way, it will be interesting to see how this thing pans out.

Regardless, if speed was all that mattered I would have bought a Dodge SRT4 rather than a Mercedes...
 
Hi CGEREU - likewise I wasn't trying to start a war o' words - I just thought that you were trying to say that you had a huge suite of high end machines in your bedroom! Just seemed a little far-fetched, but now all is explained.

I agree, these informal tests are the most relevant to us non-geeks who don't know how to optimize their machines past the point of opening the box - some guys have been posting benchmark results that are simply meaningless to a user like me.

Nonetheless, these results really are disappointing.
 
Originally posted by Rezet
Am I the only one who noticed that all these "newbie" names appear in recent days and start really praising AMD?
I wouldn't take his word into account much at this point as he might just be trolling for amd...
Click to expand...
that's just begging for a flamewar. new users are a common occurence, especially on a forum as popular as this. i highly doubt he'd create multiple accounts just to praise AMD. mods and admins can see IP addresses. maybe one of them will be kind enough to either agree with my statement or void it.
 
Ok, so some test shows the G5 kills AMD and P4 doing some filters in PS. And some tests show AMD killing the G5. And?
 
Originally posted by Independence
that's just begging for a flamewar. new users are a common occurence, especially on a forum as popular as this. i highly doubt he'd create multiple accounts just to praise AMD. mods and admins can see IP addresses. maybe one of them will be kind enough to either agree with my statement or void it.
Click to expand...

I read these boards for about three months before I made my first post. Now I'm hooked. :D
 
Originally posted by Independence
that's just begging for a flamewar. new users are a common occurence, especially on a forum as popular as this. i highly doubt he'd create multiple accounts just to praise AMD. mods and admins can see IP addresses. maybe one of them will be kind enough to either agree with my statement or void it.
Click to expand...

Somehow I think that this thread is just dying to visit the wasteland.....
 
Hi everyone,
just to answer to one comment, my name shows up a "newbie" cause I never post messages, simple cause I don't really have time, and you can also see I have been registered since July 2002, that's for over a year. I'm not promoting AMD or G5 or anything else, I run 3D apps on Dual Xeons as well, and they perform amazingly well with 3D but not that great with Photoshop at all. I simply wanted to share the tests I have done out of my own curiosity, I had some time between projects at work and I gave it a try since I have access to many different systems. I figured many users would like to see some tests other then optimized, "tailored" benchmarks we are beeing fed with by marketing campaigns and demos. I tried to be acurate with "out-of-the-box" systems and software, and these are simply the results.

Common!!!, We buy software, whatever it is, Photoshop, Maya, LightWave, Combustion and other apps. And honestly I care the most how the apps I use every day for 8 or more hours perform when I'm on tight deadlines, and at the end I have to choose a system that does it best. And I believe many of you have to do the same.

Please don't take offense. I already said I like OSX and MAC's, and I have been using MAC's since early 90's.
And what I have posted is a non-processor-OS biased results.

thanks again.
 
Originally posted by Kid Red
Ok, so some test shows the G5 kills AMD and P4 doing some filters in PS. And some tests show AMD killing the G5. And?
Click to expand...

Actually, this guy did not post any tests. He has enough time to write up a whole essay on his tests, but yet cannot conduct a REAL test.
 
The G5 will get faster once apps are optimized

But not much faster.

Frankly I'm not suprised at the results.

Apple/Motorola has let the speed of the platform degenerate to such a degree that it was a litteral "Slap in the face" fo them to announce a G5 1.6 STARTING at $2k. That's ludicrous.

Powermacs need to be Dual throughout the whole lineup. Period. Think about it. The G5 is only 1.8Ghz faster than the G4 but it has twice the pipeline stages and doesn't dispatch a high enough amount of intructions(5 vs 3) to make a huge difference.

I love Apple but for chrissakes they are the greediest company I've ever seen. They survive because of a loyal fanbase and quite honestly because Microsoft is damn near their opposite.

They need to pull their head out their azzes and start shipping Powermacs that live up to the name. I wouldn't drop a dime on a non Dual G5 system.
 
This test doesn't seem to go with what was reported by others...
2700+ AMD and 3.0 P4 etc VS G5 1.6

Hmm, doesn't look 4x slower to me.
I think that if you test a Mac it wil be faster than a MAC, they aren't designed for Photoshop, only Networking I/O...
 
Re: The G5 will get faster once apps are optimized

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
But not much faster.

Frankly I'm not suprised at the results.

Apple/Motorola has let the speed of the platform degenerate to such a degree that it was a litteral "Slap in the face" fo them to announce a G5 1.6 STARTING at $2k. That's ludicrous.

Powermacs need to be Dual throughout the whole lineup. Period. Think about it. The G5 is only 1.8Ghz faster than the G4 but it has twice the pipeline stages and doesn't dispatch a high enough amount of intructions(5 vs 3) to make a huge difference.

I love Apple but for chrissakes they are the greediest company I've ever seen. They survive because of a loyal fanbase and quite honestly because Microsoft is damn near their opposite.

They need to pull their head out their azzes and start shipping Powermacs that live up to the name. I wouldn't drop a dime on a non Dual G5 system.
Click to expand...

Makes sense... I always thought that apple misleads people with their advertisements. Although we haven't seen real G5 performance yet, seems that apple's long shot may just fall short as soon as people realize the real speed of G5's...
And Apple Resellers only throw oil in the fire. They will still try to bs you into believeing that G4's are faster than fastest Pentiums...
Although dropping 3k on dual may be a good value/money decision comparing to other G5 stats, I simply don't have that kind of money. Considering I still have to get a boat load of progams, and supplies for my upcoming 1.8, I'm already alsmost broke!
As for PCs I have seen some very nice machines built by falcon http://www.falcon-nw.com/ that are very fast and cost around 1600 bucks. So speed wise, pcs may be a way to go for many...
And even price wise actually... My frind just got eMachine tha runs at athlon 2800 has 512 333Mhz ram, 80 gigs Hdd, DVD-R/RW/ROM, CRT 17" monitor for only $799. Would Emac compete with that? I just got sick of Windows, honestly.. I was on PC for 10 years and i always had some sort of problems with software...
I just want to try something else, even if it means giving up some power and some money...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back