new G5 benchmarks

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by neilt, Sep 23, 2003.

  1. neilt macrumors regular

    May 28, 2002
    Phoenix, AZ
  2. applemacdude macrumors 68040


    Mar 26, 2001
    Over The Rainbow
  3. Makosuke macrumors 603

    Aug 15, 2001
    The Cool Part of CA, USA
    BareFeats also has some new tests up:

    Versus 3.0 P4, DP 2.4 Xeon, and DP 2.1 Athlon systems, the G5 looks decent in Cinebench (beats the P4, anyway), comes out on top in Bryce and Photoshop tests, and absolutely demolishes the competition in Adobe AfterEffects--nearly twice the speed of the closest competitor.

    Nice. Very nice.
  4. Counterfit macrumors G3


    Aug 20, 2003
    sitting on your shoulder
    I like this line: "The Cray XI spanks everything."
  5. Fender2112 macrumors 65816


    Aug 11, 2002
    Charlotte, NC
    I got a laugh out that also.

    Another interesting thing I noticed here and others have mention about other tests is this: When the G5 loses, it's by a small margin. When it wins, it's by a much larger margin. Anyone care to enlighten as why this is?
  6. Makosuke macrumors 603

    Aug 15, 2001
    The Cool Part of CA, USA
    I'm not a processor architecture expert, but I'd guess in very general terms it's something like this.

    Keep in mind that every processor has strengths and weaknesses, and certain tasks are just going to run faster on some processors (hence the wide distribution of individual times in Photoshop benchmarks). So:

    The G5 is a very, very good processor. In tasks that do not take advantage of its strengths (either due to their nature, or unoptimized code), but do take advantage of the strengths of competing processors, it looses by a relatively small margin because it's still very fast. In tasks that take advantage of both architectures' strengths, the G5 wins by a decent margin, because it's so fast. In tasks that competing processors are not well suited for but it does well on, it kicks serious butt.

    This is obviously overgeneralizing, and even if it's correct there's still more of a spectrum, but I think it's probably something along those lines. It's the same general effect with G4 vs G3 vs x86 comparisons: In tasks that make no use whatsoever of AltiVec, the G3 and G4 look similar, while higher-clocked x86s do much better. In tasks that take lots of advantage of AltiVec, the G3 looks pathetic, the x86 looks ok, and the G4 looks spectacular (at least for its clock).

    If I'm right, then we're all in for a real treat, because that would mean that even when poorly optimized for the G5 is a highly competitive processor. Once things get more optimized, it'll look way, way better.

    I hope I'm right.
  7. nek macrumors member

    Aug 26, 2003
    I guess the file sizes were only 8, 75, & 500MB, but I thought it was interesting how well the G5 did with 1.5GB of RAM compared to 16GB or >64GB. When I first read this a while ago, I was amazed at how well the G5 did against the Itanium2.

    Its also funny how at 75MB the G4 is "very slow" and at 500MB it is "unusable".

Share This Page