Head to head Dell Dimension 3.2(HT)Ghz v.s. Powermac G5 Dual 2.0

840quadra

Moderator
Original poster
Staff member
Feb 1, 2005
8,169
3,435
Twin Cities Minnesota
((MAJOR EDIT Yeah, I forgot that XP sees a hyper threaded processor as a Dual processor, it is only a single 3.2 :p))


ok..

A friend at work was talking about Cinebench, and how he uses that to tell how his computer at home stacks up against the engineering workstations we are now buying at work. He was complaining because he bought a computer 4 months ago, and now work has faster Dell computers then his. I was trying to figure out what he was talking about, until I spotted him running Cinebench on a brand new dell recently imaged with just Windows XP Pro installed.

These computers are Dual 3.2 GHZ Pentium 4 computers, with 1 GB of memory installed. Impressive to say the least, in the sheer clock speed numbers. Anyway I told him about my recent powermac purchase, and he was just dishing out loads of negative remarks in regards to my Powermac.

I had no idea how fast or slow it was when compared to the Dual 3.2Ghz, but I do understand the advantages that Apple had in the past when compared to PC's of much faster clocking CPU speeds.

I told him I ran Cinebench on my MAC at home and posted the results on these forums, he wanted to see how slow my G5 was compared to the dual 3.2 GHZ pentium 4 computer, so we loaded the Dell up with the software and ran the same tests.

Here are the results,

Dell Demension 3.2 (HT) GHZ Pentium 4 Processor Rendering
Single = 281 CB-CPU @ 93.8 seconds
Dual = 337 CB-CPU @ 78.2 seconds

Powermac G5 Dual 2.0 GHZ Processor Rendering (results as posted on seperate thread)
Single = 286 CB-CPU @ 92.1 Seconds
Dual = 521 CB-CPU @ 50.5 Seconds

Both He and I were shocked, I didn't think my PM would overpower the Dell. The single CPU speed was almost a dead tie, but when we switched to Dual, the Dell was quite a bit slower. We ran the test 4 times, and the best results were posted for the Dell.

I also kindly reminded him that this is not the current "fastest" production Macintosh. There exists a dual 2.5 with factory Liquid cooling, that is faster then my G5 :). He frowned and said he still dosen't like the taste of fruit :confused:

To each their own.

840
 

840quadra

Moderator
Original poster
Staff member
Feb 1, 2005
8,169
3,435
Twin Cities Minnesota
you are both correct..

My edit (at the top of my post) was placed :D

I don't know pentium desktops, I only really work with their server class systems
 

djbahdow01

macrumors 6502a
Jan 19, 2004
568
0
Northeast, CT
840quadra said:
((MAJOR EDIT Yeah, I forgot that XP sees a hyper threaded processor as a Dual processor, it is only a single 3.2 :p))


ok..

A friend at work was talking about Cinebench, and how he uses that to tell how his computer at home stacks up against the engineering workstations we are now buying at work. He was complaining because he bought a computer 4 months ago, and now work has faster Dell computers then his. I was trying to figure out what he was talking about, until I spotted him running Cinebench on a brand new dell recently imaged with just Windows XP Pro installed.

These computers are Dual 3.2 GHZ Pentium 4 computers, with 1 GB of memory installed. Impressive to say the least, in the sheer clock speed numbers. Anyway I told him about my recent powermac purchase, and he was just dishing out loads of negative remarks in regards to my Powermac.

I had no idea how fast or slow it was when compared to the Dual 3.2Ghz, but I do understand the advantages that Apple had in the past when compared to PC's of much faster clocking CPU speeds.

I told him I ran Cinebench on my MAC at home and posted the results on these forums, he wanted to see how slow my G5 was compared to the dual 3.2 GHZ pentium 4 computer, so we loaded the Dell up with the software and ran the same tests.

Here are the results,

Dell Demension 3.2 (HT) GHZ Pentium 4 Processor Rendering
Single = 281 CB-CPU @ 93.8 seconds
Dual = 337 CB-CPU @ 78.2 seconds

Powermac G5 Dual 2.0 GHZ Processor Rendering (results as posted on seperate thread)
Single = 286 CB-CPU @ 92.1 Seconds
Dual = 521 CB-CPU @ 50.5 Seconds

Both He and I were shocked, I didn't think my PM would overpower the Dell. The single CPU speed was almost a dead tie, but when we switched to Dual, the Dell was quite a bit slower. We ran the test 4 times, and the best results were posted for the Dell.

I also kindly reminded him that this is not the current "fastest" production Macintosh. There exists a dual 2.5 with factory Liquid cooling, that is faster then my G5 :). He frowned and said he still dosen't like the taste of fruit :confused:

To each their own.

840
Just ran it on the 2.5 tell your friend I got this.
Single = 336 CB-CPU @ 74.1 sec
Double = 618 CB-CPU @ 42.6 sec.

Id like to see hw it would stacke up against a real Intel dual processor, or even and AMD system.
 

wrc fan

macrumors 65816
djbahdow01 said:
Just ran it on the 2.5 tell your friend I got this.
Single = 336 CB-CPU @ 74.1 sec
Double = 618 CB-CPU @ 42.6 sec.

Id like to see hw it would stacke up against a real Intel dual processor, or even and AMD system.
According to Barefeats a Dual 2.6GHz AMD Opteron got 687, a Dual 2.5GHz G5 got 649, and a Dual 3.4GHz Xeon got 643. But then you have to understand when the Operton and Xeon were released in comparision to the G5, and you see that a system released last August is holding its own with systems released in January.
 

840quadra

Moderator
Original poster
Staff member
Feb 1, 2005
8,169
3,435
Twin Cities Minnesota
IJ Reilly said:
BareFeats tests:

http://www.barefeats.com/macvpc.html

edit: LOL -- posted this link almost simultaneously!
That is a good test from what it looks like. Too bad I don't have that kind of money to spend. I like how the G5 is still holding up with the faster clocked systems in a couple of tests.

I am happy that the G5 lost more to the AMD as opposed to Intel. I also hope that Apple and IBM are close to Dual core, or faster clocked G5's soon!!
 

Abstract

macrumors Penryn
Dec 27, 2002
24,415
124
Location Location Location
djbahdow01 said:
Just ran it on the 2.5 tell your friend I got this.
Single = 336 CB-CPU @ 74.1 sec
Double = 618 CB-CPU @ 42.6 sec.

Id like to see hw it would stacke up against a real Intel dual processor, or even and AMD system.
Yeah, I hate it when people bash PCs because a dual proc PowerMac is faster than a single proc Dell or Alienware or whatever. Yes yes, the Pentium is hyperthreaded, but really, its a bad comparison.

The point is that they're both fast.
 

840quadra

Moderator
Original poster
Staff member
Feb 1, 2005
8,169
3,435
Twin Cities Minnesota
Abstract said:
Yeah, I hate it when people bash PCs because a dual proc PowerMac is faster than a single proc Dell or Alienware or whatever. Yes yes, the Pentium is hyperthreaded, but really, its a bad comparison.

The point is that they're both fast.
Actually the thread started the other way around, my co-worker was bashing macs. I am not bashing PC's, if it appears that I am , I am sorry, but it is not my intention.

840
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.