JNaut said:
I for one will look forward to you findings when your new machine arrives! Congrats to those here who have goten there new machines already, damn they are purdy! Will be ordering mine in a few days!
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.
Mac Pro Arrived! Pics Included
- Thread starter Laslo Panaflex
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I for one will look forward to you findings when your new machine arrives! Congrats to those here who have goten there new machines already, damn they are purdy! Will be ordering mine in a few days!
My Mac mini scores good against the Mac Pro's Rosetta score in GeekBench-as high as 210 in one of it's test
Macintouch benchmarks show the G5 blowing the Mac Pro outta the water in 1 test and it shows the Mac Pro exactly equal to an iMac G5. What's the deal with that?
http://www.macintouch.com/#tips.2006.08.08
http://www.macintouch.com/#tips.2006.08.08
Laslo Panaflex said:
First of all congrats from Holland!
Dit that impressive test you did use all 4 cores?
If it only used 2 (or 1 even...) cores, (and it used 2 CPU's of your old G5) then the speed increase is impressive!
Almost 3 x as fast, with only a 33% higher clock.
But if that test did use 4 cores (and on your old G5, 2) then I wouldn't call it great. A Quad G5 vould have been about 3 times as fast aswell...
Any idea?
carletonmusic said:
Its not a prosumer machine its a pretty standard PC box configuration. iMacs are for people who want the whole thing in one box. My suggestion would cost more (with screen) than an iMac but would provide better performance and hopefully be a pizza box form factor.
I think this would be a really good multimedia Mac for the TV
Multimedia said:This is not a joke post. In a year you should be able to sixteen cores to take you through college with a decent amount of power.
In the future its not GHz but number of cores to measure machines aginst each other.
motulist said:
well
The G5 is a great great processor.
That is not the reason of the Intel transission.
Apple could have released a quad G5 3+ ghz system by now, if they wanted.
But, then the Xeon system had been slower.
It is all about marketing. Our loving Jobs likes to twist the facts.
The Watt performance claim is bull.
The G5s are low powerchips. Woodcrest is 85Watt. The G5 does not use more. The different is in how they manufactor the chip. intel is a lot better then IBM with spreading the heat.
If Apple had been smart, they should have keept the watercooler and clocked the Xeons to 3.7ghz.
That would had made them even more unique.
Now, they are cheap quad Intel that can not do dual grapics.
aswitcher said:
But, since programs do not use more then 1 (or 2) cores, that will not do any difference.
Sun has had its niagara processor for over a year now. 32 threads at 1.2ghz.
A great great processor for server, but not for mail, games, and single user enviroments.
Since I have used dual processors since 1999 on both Windows and Mac.
On mac, most of the programs I use, can use 2 processors. Often like compressor, that one processor uses the sound, and the other the video.
On PC, well... it do not work. Almost no programs are dual aware.
Off cource pro apps like 3D rendering is it, but not to many ordinary program.
Depending of what you do, the processor is really not the problem.
I, who compress video, uses USENET, torrent and Itunes: My problem is I/O. 50% of my 2ghz dual G5 is on I/O. And I have 5 gig memory
It is better to have many computers instead.
4 macminis would better then one quad woodcrest
Not true. You can't compare IBMs TDPs to AMD/Intel TDPs. The TDP (Thermal Design Power) specified by AMD/Intel indicates an absolute maximum - the value for which the cooling solution should be designed for. Real-World power-consumption, even at peaks, is usually much lower (complete product lines often have the same TDP but every chip has a different power consumption). The TDP specified by IBM indicates the average power consumtion! The DualCore G5 cpu as used in the previous Quad-Powermacs has a TDP (as specified by IBM) of around 100W.shompa said:
Furthermore, Apple won't clock the CPUs higher than IBM specifies because Apple would have the complete risk on their site (if half of the CPUs die after a year, IBM could not be held responsible).
Anyway - the PowerMac G5 is still a hell of a machine...
That's just a driver thing. If they get a go from nVidia (which is highly possible because ATI is now owned by AMD and nVidia will work closer with Intel) they'll be able to do SLI as well. There was even a windows driver hack around some time ago which enabled SLI on any PCIe chipset.shompa said:
shompa said:On PC, well... it do not work. Almost no programs are dual aware.
Off cource pro apps like 3D rendering is it, but not to many ordinary program.
Depending of what you do, the processor is really not the problem.
I, who compress video, uses USENET, torrent and Itunes: My problem is I/O. 50% of my 2ghz dual G5 is on I/O. And I have 5 gig memory
It is better to have many computers instead.
4 macminis would better then one quad woodcrest
But many programs (on the PC and on the Mac) are multithreaded. Fire up Task Manager in XP and look at the thread count.
Personally, I'd rather have a quad Woodie than 4 Mac minis. I've run a dual HT Xeon PC box for the last four years and it's still perfectly usable even now (though it is shortly to be replaced with a Mac Pro).
If I/O saturation is an issue, buy a PCIe SAS card and make use of the four drive bays in the Mac Pro.
Laslo Panaflex said:
Is this the same Photoshop Test where the Quad G5 completed in 39 seonds?
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/200558/
yg17 said:Holy christ that was fast
And what in the hell is FB-DIMM? Never seen the FB before.
The diff between a FBDIMM and a DDR-2 DIMM is that there is a buffer chip on each memory DIMM that buffers the signal between DIMMs. This allows you to use less wiring to each DIMM on the circuit board and lets you get higher front side bus speeds (1066MHz, 1333MHz).
The drawback is they pull more power, and if the buffer chip goes down any DIMM after the chip with the failed DIMM will vanish until you replace the broken one.
Can't mix ATI with Nvidia?
Really? Where did you get this information? I haven't seen it anywhere.
That means that if you choose the ATI Radeon X1900 XT you can only have that one and you're limited to 2 displays. Can anyone verify this?
Sun Baked said:
Really? Where did you get this information? I haven't seen it anywhere.
That means that if you choose the ATI Radeon X1900 XT you can only have that one and you're limited to 2 displays. Can anyone verify this?
