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

MacWorld mag G5 speed tests

I actually find it quite impressing that the overall score of the single 1.6 G5 is higher than that of the dual 1.42 G4!
 
Hmmm.....
The Dual G4 1.42 is faster in iMovie Rendering, iTunes ripping, more FPS in Quake, faster in Photoshop, Cinema and MPEG encoding than the Single 1.6 GHz G5.
I assume that the "overall score" is a single processor benchmark.
 
so now i suddenly have this urge to squander 3000 big ones that i don't have because i MUST have the dual 2.0...

of course, from the way it sounds, it would be about christmas before i got it.

but what a christmas gift.

matt
 
Originally posted by mkaake
so now i suddenly have this urge to squander 3000 big ones that i don't have because i MUST have the dual 2.0...

of course, from the way it sounds, it would be about christmas before i got it.

but what a christmas gift.
Click to expand...

Of course, by that time, they'll have announced dual 3.0s...
 
MPEG encoding

Did anyone notice that the MPEG2 test of a 6:40 DVD occured in less than 6:00? This suggests that we are at the point of realtime full video processing on personal computers.
 
The 1.42 is slightly faster or equal to the 1.8 G5 in all the real tasks but Photoshop, as well. Also note the last paragraph about the Processor Performance setting.

Hopefully Panther will fix these numbers right up. :)
 
I think its good to see that the Dual 1.42 GHz G4's perform so well.
I don't really expect Panther to make such a huge difference on these tests.
Probably the new releases of Photoshop, iMovie and so on would make a greater difference.
 
Jezus, whoever bought a single proc PM got ripped!! Seriously, what a joke. They aren't worth the money. There's little improvement over a dual 1.42GHz, if any at all. :eek: I'd hold out for the duals, and ONLY the duals...

Maybe that's why Apple stopped selling their 1.42GHz systems and stuck with selling their 1.25GHz systems for a while. They knew what the reviews would reveal, and so they just too their 1.42GHz systems off their site.

Or maybe I forgot to take my ritalin today and am just rambling.....
 
Originally posted by Abstract

Maybe that's why Apple stopped selling their 1.42GHz systems and stuck with selling their 1.25GHz systems for a while. They knew what the reviews would reveal, and so they just too their 1.42GHz systems off their site.
Click to expand...

There are lot of reasons why Apple stopped producing the 1.42 Ghz's....
Remember that the current 1.25 is based on the first rev. A of Dual 1.25 Ghz G4's - the one that can boot Mac OS 9....so:
reason # 1: Mac OS 9 boot, no FW 800
reason # 2: Not many 1.42 GHz procs around
reason # 3: 1.42 GHz is expensive
reason # 4: performance..... Not that the Dual 1.42 is much faster than the Dual 1.25, but as you can see the Dual G4's come too close (or even outpace) the Single G5
 
I may have missed it, but was the OS optimized for the G5 in these tests? If not, then they'll need to be done again after optimization.
 
I already mentioned this, but I assume that the next releases of the software would be more of interest -G5 optimization speedwise- than the next OS release....
IMHO Photoshop 8 would be more "G5" optimized, than Photoshop 7 (w/ G5 "updater") running on Panther.
 
I can't believe they didn't post what videocard each model had in it. I mean, look at the quake 3 test... the dual G5 gets twice the FPS as the 1.8 GHz. They really should have tested them with the same videocards... otherwise that benchmark was pretty worthless.

So let me guess, the 1.6 and 1.8 GHz had the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra, and the 2.0 GHz had the ATI Radeon 9600 Pro? How is this a comparison between the models if they don't have the same videocards?
 
Originally posted by ZildjianKX
I can't believe they didn't post what videocard each model had in it. I mean, look at the quake 3 test... the dual G5 gets twice the FPS as the 1.8 GHz. They really should have tested them with the same videocards... otherwise that benchmark was pretty worthless.

So let me guess, the 1.6 and 1.8 GHz had the NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra, and the 2.0 GHz had the ATI Radeon 9600 Pro? How is this a comparison between the models if they don't have the same videocards?
Click to expand...

Well spotted.
Assuming they are testing the default configs, the Dual would have the 9600, and the Single the FX.... That is indeed a HUGE disadvantage for the single.
Good ad voor ATi, though ;)
 
Originally posted by MacsRgr8
Well spotted.
Assuming they are testing the default configs, the Dual would have the 9600, and the Single the FX.... That is indeed a HUGE disadvantage for the single.
Good ad voor ATi, though ;)
Click to expand...

Maybe the people who performed the benchmarks at macworld.com didn't have the "technical know-how" to swap the videocards amongst the 3 G5s they had to do a proper test :D

The 1.6 GHz G5 also has 256 MB of RAM stock... it is still super crappy of them not to list the full specs of the machines they're testing.

I really want to see how a 1.8 GHz performs with a Radeon 9600.
 
i would guess they were all configured stock, so the singles have a fx5200 while the dual was a 9600 ati card. just my guess. the top machine is a screamer., but really how much do you need? iam happy has heck with a single g4 at 1.33 does everything i need.
 
Originally posted by ZildjianKX
Maybe the people who performed the benchmarks at macworld.com didn't have the "technical know-how" to swap the videocards amongst the 3 G5s they had to do a proper test :D

The 1.6 GHz G5 also has 256 MB of RAM stock... it is still super crappy of them not to list the full specs of the machines they're testing.

I really want to see how a 1.8 GHz performs with a Radeon 9600.
Click to expand...
The article states that all systems had 512 MB of memory.
 
Originally posted by Abstract
Jezus, whoever bought a single proc PM got ripped!! Seriously, what a joke. They aren't worth the money. There's little improvement over a dual 1.42GHz, if any at all. :eek: I'd hold out for the duals, and ONLY the duals...

Maybe that's why Apple stopped selling their 1.42GHz systems and stuck with selling their 1.25GHz systems for a while. They knew what the reviews would reveal, and so they just too their 1.42GHz systems off their site.

Or maybe I forgot to take my ritalin today and am just rambling.....
Click to expand...

The 1.8 is on par with the 1.42 and costs 300 less than the dual 1.42. I think that would not constitute anyone getting ripped. Plus, once the apps are written for the G5, these stats should change. However , I may be a biased single processor G5 owner.:D
 
For all of those who are whining that the Single processor G5s are a rip-off ... keep this in mind. Anyone who "upgraded" from a Dual 1.42 G4 ($3000 new) to a Single 1.8 or 1.6 G5 ($2400 and $2000 respectively) without seeing benchmarks first was foolish. :confused:

No one claimed that the Single G5s would be "significantly" faster than the Dual 1.42 G4s in all processes. However, for someone with an older computer ... a choice between single G5 or dual G4 would suggest that the Single G5 was a better buy (cheaper), a quieter machine, a faster bus, more memory capabilities (mind you all computers in benchmarks had 512MB ... the G5 can go to 4 GB ... which would improve performance significantly), a faster DVD burner, and will take ultimately take advantage of 64 bit processing when the software is available for it ... something the G4s can't claim. The G5 dual 2GHz for $3000 and the G4 Dual G4 1.42 GHz for $3000 a few months back ... was well worth the wait ... and the single G5s were a great replacement choice over the dual G4 1.42 for an upgrade option from something OLDER!!

Just my opinion! :D
 
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