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.
Opteron vs G5
- Thread starter Independence
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Originally posted by Stike
We got beaten...
in PHOTOSHOP!!!
Aaaaahhh!!!!!
THE END IS NIGH
WE MUST ALL GET SHELTERS
NOOOOO
NEXT TIME THEY SHOULD USE G5 OPTIMISATIONS
I've seen some where that the G5 needs alot of memory for PS to make full potential of its ability. Anyway so what if we got beats. G5 is already six months old. Rev B of G5s are just around the corner. I hope
anyhow any competition is always good competition (moto)...
anyhow any competition is always good competition (moto)...
Originally posted by Stike
We got beaten...
in PHOTOSHOP!!!
Aaaaahhh!!!!!
...and *win* everything else! So much for the 'the Opteron would wipe the floor with the G5' PC propaganda after it was left out in Apples initial benchmark comparisons.
And if you look closer, the G5 is even almost 700 $ *cheaper* than the Opteron in as-equal-as-possible configurations (unless you build that thing yourself). Go figure!
This quote from the article seems to apply to you.
"You should read some of the angry email I'm getting questioning my methods and motives. Seeing how we're the only web site in the world that has begged for months, driven for miles, and worked for hours to test both the Opteron and G5 as carefully and as fairly as possible, you'd think they could cut us a little slack."
If you'd have actually read the article, you'd have seen that the G5 beat the Opteron in everything but Photoshop. It performed pretty well but you still aren't happy? Take a look at After Effects. It's not exactly a Mac strong point but it still won that portion of the tests. Photoshop was the only test it lost.
G5 optimisations? I'll let you in on a little secret: I don't think any of that software they tested was optimised for the Opteron either.
Irrelevant benchmarks again !!!!
These Photoshop, rendering and 3D tests only go to prove the lack of expertise in optimising apps for the G5.
If you look at Apples performance figures you will get a more accurate overview of the potential of the G5 and not a test of how well software is written. I understand that we can only use what developers create and if Adobe creates a faster version of PS on the PC then it's obvious that the PC benchmarks are going to be faster.
If that's the case then these threads should be titled:
Adobe's PC dev team VS Adobe's Mac dev team and not Opteron vs G5
For a more accurate measure of actual CPU performance you need to look at highly optimised code libraries available on All platforms. You need to find code that each platform vendor has had, the time, money and expertise to make their respective CPU architecture looks as impressive as possible.
A good set of code libraries do exist in the form of FFT or fast fourier transforms. These highly optimised code libraries and algorithms are at the heart of every decent app used for video, audio and imaging. Each vendor has now had the time to fully optimise their own libraries to compile and execute as fast as humanly possible. Each vendor is allowed and has used every trick up their sleeve to make their CPU work as fast as possible.
And you will agree that the benchmarks are very surprising indeed. Here is an overview of the results that are linked to below (from slowest - fastest):
These are peak results for double precision 1D transforms measured in mflops
Single 400Mhz G3____________________415
Quad 500Mhz PIII____________________500
Single 500Mhz Ultrasparc IIe____________810
Single 733Mhz G4____________________985
Dual 833Mhz Alpha Eu6_______________1600
Dual AMD Athalon XP1700_____________1650
Dual 1.4Ghz AMD Opteron 240 - 32-bit____1730
Dual 1.4Ghz AMD Opteron 240 - 64-bit____2075
Dual 2.0Ghz AMD Opteron 246 - 32-bit____2400
Dual 2.0Ghz AMD Opteron 246 - 64-bit____2900
Dual 2.2Ghz Xeon____________________2900
Dual 900Mhz Itanium II________________3025
Dual 2.8Ghz Xeon____________________3900
Dual 2.8Ghz Xeon New Code libraries______3900
Dual 2.0Ghz G5______________________4000
These are peak results for single precision 1D transforms
Dual 2.0Ghz AMD Opteron 246 - 64-bit___4300
Dual 2.8Ghz Xeon___________________6900
Dual 2.0Ghz G5____________________10000
These result make it perfectly obvious that the G5 under highly optimised conditions is by far the superior CPU architecture. The full benchmarks including all source code used is freely available from the following site FFTW . You will also see that this site has NO affiliation or preference for any particular platform. Their goal is to simply create the fastest possible FFT libraries for as many platforms as possible.
From the above figures the Dual G5 is:
144% faster then the Dual Xeon and
232% faster then the Opteron .
These results also have to do with the fact that Apple has produced the fastest FFT code library currently available anywhere, fullstop. These Apple code libraries are also the reason why FCP, DVD Studio Pro and Apple's other Pro apps are the fastest in their respective fields. If Apple were to release a competitor to PS I would stake my life on the fact that it would trounce any crappy Adobe version, even running on the fastest PC available.
So please stop pretending that these other published benchmarks are anything more than a test of the software and how well it is written.
These Photoshop, rendering and 3D tests only go to prove the lack of expertise in optimising apps for the G5.
If you look at Apples performance figures you will get a more accurate overview of the potential of the G5 and not a test of how well software is written. I understand that we can only use what developers create and if Adobe creates a faster version of PS on the PC then it's obvious that the PC benchmarks are going to be faster.
If that's the case then these threads should be titled:
Adobe's PC dev team VS Adobe's Mac dev team and not Opteron vs G5
For a more accurate measure of actual CPU performance you need to look at highly optimised code libraries available on All platforms. You need to find code that each platform vendor has had, the time, money and expertise to make their respective CPU architecture looks as impressive as possible.
A good set of code libraries do exist in the form of FFT or fast fourier transforms. These highly optimised code libraries and algorithms are at the heart of every decent app used for video, audio and imaging. Each vendor has now had the time to fully optimise their own libraries to compile and execute as fast as humanly possible. Each vendor is allowed and has used every trick up their sleeve to make their CPU work as fast as possible.
And you will agree that the benchmarks are very surprising indeed. Here is an overview of the results that are linked to below (from slowest - fastest):
These are peak results for double precision 1D transforms measured in mflops
Single 400Mhz G3____________________415
Quad 500Mhz PIII____________________500
Single 500Mhz Ultrasparc IIe____________810
Single 733Mhz G4____________________985
Dual 833Mhz Alpha Eu6_______________1600
Dual AMD Athalon XP1700_____________1650
Dual 1.4Ghz AMD Opteron 240 - 32-bit____1730
Dual 1.4Ghz AMD Opteron 240 - 64-bit____2075
Dual 2.0Ghz AMD Opteron 246 - 32-bit____2400
Dual 2.0Ghz AMD Opteron 246 - 64-bit____2900
Dual 2.2Ghz Xeon____________________2900
Dual 900Mhz Itanium II________________3025
Dual 2.8Ghz Xeon____________________3900
Dual 2.8Ghz Xeon New Code libraries______3900
Dual 2.0Ghz G5______________________4000
These are peak results for single precision 1D transforms
Dual 2.0Ghz AMD Opteron 246 - 64-bit___4300
Dual 2.8Ghz Xeon___________________6900
Dual 2.0Ghz G5____________________10000
These result make it perfectly obvious that the G5 under highly optimised conditions is by far the superior CPU architecture. The full benchmarks including all source code used is freely available from the following site FFTW . You will also see that this site has NO affiliation or preference for any particular platform. Their goal is to simply create the fastest possible FFT libraries for as many platforms as possible.
From the above figures the Dual G5 is:
144% faster then the Dual Xeon and
232% faster then the Opteron .
These results also have to do with the fact that Apple has produced the fastest FFT code library currently available anywhere, fullstop. These Apple code libraries are also the reason why FCP, DVD Studio Pro and Apple's other Pro apps are the fastest in their respective fields. If Apple were to release a competitor to PS I would stake my life on the fact that it would trounce any crappy Adobe version, even running on the fastest PC available.
So please stop pretending that these other published benchmarks are anything more than a test of the software and how well it is written.
Hmm...interesting. I wonder how that benches against the new AMD-64 FX's.
Anyway...please, please don't say that:
"as-equal-as-possible configurations (unless you build that thing yourself)"
thing. Any PC user will tell you that anyone who doesn't build their own PC rarely has anything worth having, and I will say that. Anything you can buy from anyone (including Alienware, Falcon NW, etc.) is almost always absurdly overpriced and made with less that prime parts. Also, building PC's takes about...say...a 7th grade education.
Anyway...please, please don't say that:
"as-equal-as-possible configurations (unless you build that thing yourself)"
thing. Any PC user will tell you that anyone who doesn't build their own PC rarely has anything worth having, and I will say that. Anything you can buy from anyone (including Alienware, Falcon NW, etc.) is almost always absurdly overpriced and made with less that prime parts. Also, building PC's takes about...say...a 7th grade education.
Actually, I thought the G5 did really well... (no sarcasm)
It won on everything (sometimes by a good margin ~40%!!) except photoshop (which was close), I think you'll see much better results with photoshop compiles with XLC.
And those OpenGL tests, well we'll see once they get the 9800 Pro 256 in the G5, should be pretty close, though does anyone know the clock speed of the 9800 256MB? Its still not as fast as the XT is it?
It won on everything (sometimes by a good margin ~40%!!) except photoshop (which was close), I think you'll see much better results with photoshop compiles with XLC.
And those OpenGL tests, well we'll see once they get the 9800 Pro 256 in the G5, should be pretty close, though does anyone know the clock speed of the 9800 256MB? Its still not as fast as the XT is it?
BTW - i don't mind.
you show me an opteron that runs OSX and i will care. I got a dual g4 for macos not for blistering render times that make santa look slow.
but yes i do video - but then with tools like imovie/FCE/FCP who wouldn't if they had a mac?
you show me an opteron that runs OSX and i will care. I got a dual g4 for macos not for blistering render times that make santa look slow.
but yes i do video - but then with tools like imovie/FCE/FCP who wouldn't if they had a mac?
Oh yeah? Then how do these companys (Alienware, Falcon NW, etc.) stay in business when nobody buys their stuff? I am very sure that the overall percentage of PC users that build their own machines is a lot lower than you think it is.
Those companies stay in business because people fail to realize how simple it is to build a computer yourself. And yes, very few people to build their own PC's.
there is no doubt that both machines are real monsters, but the g5 was considerably cheaper and that, for a change, is great news
i hated seeing very inexpensive pcs whip the g4's butt and it was starting to get depressing after two years
i hated seeing very inexpensive pcs whip the g4's butt and it was starting to get depressing after two years