MacBytes

macrumors bot
Original poster
Jul 5, 2003
18,275
0
PC Magazine posted their first impressions and benchmarks from Apple's Dual 2.0GHz PowerMac G5. While suspect of Apple's claims of the worlds fastest personal computer, PCMagazine admits that "the G5 is generally as fast as the best Intel-based workstations currently available".

PCMagazine's benchmarks compare a Dual 2.0GHz G5 to a Dell Dual 3.06GHz Xeon machine, and showed comparable results:

On our cross-platform application tests, the G5 was the clear winner on tests using Adobe Acrobat and Sorenson Squeeze (a video compression tool). The Dell entry bested the G5 under Adobe Photoshop 7 and NewTek Lightwave 3D, a 3-D modeling application.

Benchmarks results are provided by the magazine, and test suite details are provided on the second page with the note that loading the controls on the PC (under Photoshop) often took a minute or more (these times were not included in their final benchmark numbers).

Recent Dual 2.0GHz benchmarks posted by individuals offer similar promising results.
 

dombi

macrumors regular
Jul 8, 2003
121
59
They removed the times it took for the PC to load the controls...that is how the PC bested the Mac.

"At these larger image sizes, although the Wintel test times were quite good, both the G4 and G5 computers proved more adept at distort functions like wave and pinch. Moreover, on the Windows system, loading the controls often took a minute or more. If these times are added back to the actual test times, both Macintosh computers would have clearly outperformed the Windows-based computer."
 
Comment

QCassidy352

macrumors G4
Mar 20, 2003
11,729
5,272
Bay Area
GREAT news. If PC Magazine is saying the G5 is so fast, people are going to have to believe it.

I know it's been said before, but I'll say it again -- the title of "world's fastest computer" is just for bragging rights; what actually matters is that Macs are seriously competitive again. The two machines seem about evenly matched, but even if one is slightly faster than the other, who cares. The point is that it's comparable again, whereas it was just a blowout when powermacs had the G4.
 
Comment

GregGomer

macrumors member
Jul 24, 2002
60
0
Did they use the new G5 optimized Photoshop plugin, I assume they did?

Also, what do you mean by they didn't count the time to load the controls? You mean the time to open the plugin's parameter window? I guess I didn't fully understand that part.

Greg
 
Comment

dombi

macrumors regular
Jul 8, 2003
121
59
You can read the article on the site that will explain how they did the testing.

Originally posted by GregGomer
Did they use the new G5 optimized Photoshop plugin, I assume they did?

Also, what do you mean by they didn't count the time to load the controls? You mean the time to open the plugin's parameter window? I guess I didn't fully understand that part.

Greg
 
Comment

Backtothemac

macrumors 601
Jan 3, 2002
4,207
2
San Destin Florida
Here is my bitch. Why use Dual 3.06 GHZ Xeons? Those are Corporate server processors, and are really, really expensive. Do a cost comparison, and the G5 smokes the Grey box.

Also, how can you not include the time that it takes to load the filter? That is insane!

Overall, nice to see the PC users realize their plight :)
 
Comment

gerardrj

macrumors regular
May 2, 2002
208
0
Arizona
You have to wonder

Originally posted by dombi
They removed the times it took for the PC to load the controls...that is how the PC bested the Mac.

Who spends more time testing software benchmark configurations for results to publish:
1. Apple to make the Mac look fast
2. The PC mags to make Apple look like liars
 
Comment

Poff

macrumors 65816
Sep 16, 2003
1,258
1
Stavanger, Norway
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Here is my bitch. Why use Dual 3.06 GHZ Xeons? Those are Corporate server processors, and are really, really expensive. Do a cost comparison, and the G5 smokes the Grey box.

The PC was about the same price as the mac according to the tests. (Mac was upgraded with 2gigs ram and 9800 graphics card.)
 
Comment

mcdawson

macrumors member
Sep 19, 2003
32
0
Originally posted by evolu
wonder if Photoshop had the G5 optimization plug-in?

Otherwise, smoke those beige ugly boxes!

The article said that they used Photoshop 7.0.1 with the G5 plugin…
 
Comment

gothamac

macrumors member
Feb 28, 2003
98
0
Manhattan
I saw on another discussion board that the PC they used was about $5,500
on the Dell web site. Also, they had Apple install an extra gig of ram, and we
all know how over priced that is.
 
Comment

silvergunuk

macrumors regular
Mar 17, 2003
133
0
England
It's a load of crap

Notice they didn't say how much ram the dell pc had, I just checked on their own website and it came to just over $6000. They should have given the full spec of the pc and not just give the mac more ram to justify the insanely high price they gave it.

Damn you just beat me to it :(
 
Comment

zapp

macrumors regular
Aug 23, 2003
235
3
Caribou,ME
Hostile Aren't they

In the first paragraph of the article, they admit that they were out to disprove Mr. Jobs claim that the Dual G5 is the fastest personal computer. Just by that admission that invalidates any data they publish. And then there was the issue of loading controls..........isn't that part of the test???

Think I will go ride my bike.
 
Comment

acj

macrumors 6502
Feb 3, 2003
345
0
How are you configuring this Dell???

A few notes:

The Dell CAN be configured similarly for under $4500, which includes a $400 graphics card upgrade, 2 gigs of ram, etc. This does not include the Xeons with the L3 cache.

Dells ram is also overpriced.

For myself and my colleagues, filter speed is not the main issue in Photoshop.

The right filters in a benchmark can make a single G4 1.25 seem faster than a dual Xeon 3.06, and a single Pentium 4 2Ghz seem faster than a dual G5 2.0.

What is this loading controls BS? What controls? Huh?

The G5 Photoshop plug in does not improve things much (yet)
 
Comment

gothamac

macrumors member
Feb 28, 2003
98
0
Manhattan
Re: It's a load of crap

Originally posted by silvergunuk
Notice they didn't say how much ram the dell pc had, I just checked on their own website and it came to just over $6000. They should have given the full spec of the pc and not just give the mac more ram to justify the insanely high price they gave it.

Damn you just beat me to it :(

Well then, how about installing your own RAM upgrade and that brings the G5
to about $4,000 vs $6,000 for the PC. A full 50% higher price. That seems fair.
 
Comment

Genie

macrumors 6502a
May 25, 2003
604
0
heaven
At the same price, withjust the stock machine and components from NewEgg, the G5 slays the Dual Xeon.

I know- when Apple were delaying my G5 shipment - I considered getting the Dell.

Dude, I'm glad I didn't.

 
Comment

mcdawson

macrumors member
Sep 19, 2003
32
0
Looking at the times, I saw some odd differences between the G5, G4, & Xenon machines. However, I don't know enough about Photoshop to understand the "why". Given that the dual G5 is rougly 30% faster than the 1.4 G4, its a great testimony to the machine that it was usually more than 30% faster than the G4 (1.42x CPU & 1.43x faster in overall tests)

The one exception was the "Noise median" test, where the G5 was only about 15 % faster. When the G5 lost to the Xenon, it was usually a close loss; however, it was 1.8x slower on this same test. What is this test, and why would the Windows machines perform so much better than Apple's?

It also was interesting that the G5 beat the G4 by 2.9x & 2x on the unsharp mask & wave tests--I wonder what was in those tests that allowed optimization to succeed so well?

If the RGB lighting, noise median, and RGB to CMYK tests could be optimized to about equal the Xenon's score, it looks like it would have been about a dead heat (105 sec vs 102)--and handily beat the Xenon if the "control loading" issue had been included.
 
Comment

panphage

macrumors 6502
Jul 1, 2003
496
0
Originally posted by Poff
The PC was about the same price as the mac according to the tests. (Mac was upgraded with 2gigs ram and 9800 graphics card.)

Yeah, a Precision 650 w/Dual 3.06 Xeons, 2GB RAM on 4 DIMMS (DDR 266 though), it comes to a couple hundred less than their quoted price for the apple.

#1 Ram: The Dell has four sticks of 512MB DDR266. The Apple has two sticks of 1024MB DDR400. The Dell memory is ECC. So, costwise, prolly not too different. Go to 2x1024MB sticks in the dell and you're talking about an extra $629. ouch. (Can someone tell me what NECC is? It was an option on the dell but didn't change the price.)

#2 HDD: The dell has 120GB 7200RPM ATA. The Apple, 160GB 7200RPM SATA. Another slight discrepancy, but that's the best non-scsi drive available on the dell. Grab the 146GB U3 scsi drive and the dell gets expensive, but I'm guessing the HDD performance goes WAY up compared to the SATA.

#3 the dell has no equivalent available to the Superdrive, my $300 less than apple config had a fast CD/RW.

ALSO, the Graphics cards are out of whack. The dell is a workstation, you can only configure it with the really high-end cards I wish were available for the G5. The default (where I left it to not fudge the #s) is a "Radeon VE" w/32mb memory. I don't even know what a Radeon VE is. It appears to be a Radeon 7000. That's a bit of a drop from a 9800 pro with 128mb ram. But again the only option is to go to a FireGL, Wildcat, or QuadroFX. I just don't know enough about video cards to pick on that's close to the Radeon 9800.

So as always, there's just no way to really compare very very close configs. The dell seems to either fall short for about the same price or get great features for a significant increase. But there's no way to make the dell have really equivalent features and see how much that'd run you.
 
Comment

acj

macrumors 6502
Feb 3, 2003
345
0
I know my work would choose the radeon VE. It's all that's needed. And there is a "superdrive" The DVD+R is not the same spec as Apples DVD-R, but it's the same speed, and it burns CDs of course.
 
Comment

MOM

macrumors member
May 14, 2002
83
1
San Francisco
Add me to the list of dumb people who don't know what loading the controls means. Do they mean launching the program? Or, launching a script to run the tests?
 
Comment

odenshaw

macrumors newbie
Aug 15, 2002
8
0
acrobat Vs. preview

didn't jobs say something about how preview is way faster than acrobat anyway.
That would mean the mac would win by even more!!!

anyway, because who uses acrobat anyway? hahahaaa
 
Comment

mcdawson

macrumors member
Sep 19, 2003
32
0
Re: How are you configuring this Dell???

Originally posted by acj
A few notes:

The G5 Photoshop plug in does not improve things much (yet)

It looks like it improved the unsharp mask & wave tests quite a bit (2.8x & 2x faster respectively)--that's way more than the CPU boost (1.42x faster). It improved enough that it beat the Xenon (unsharp) and got really close (wave). The noise median test was slower than the CPU bost (1.13x faster); the rest seemed roughly a "CPU bost" (1.4x) faster…
 
Comment

acj

macrumors 6502
Feb 3, 2003
345
0
Re: Re: How are you configuring this Dell???

Originally posted by mcdawson
It looks like it improved the unsharp mask & wave tests quite a bit (2.8x & 2x faster respectively)--that's way more than the CPU boost (1.42x faster). It improved enough that it beat the Xenon (unsharp) and got really close (wave). The noise median test was slower than the CPU bost (1.13x faster); the rest seemed roughly a "CPU bost" (1.4x) faster…

I think the G5 would still score higher than the MHz difference would suggest, without the plugin.
 
Comment

Steven1621

macrumors 6502a
Apr 10, 2003
796
0
Connecticut
the g5 may be just as fast as the pc, but it is the software that truely set the two apart. os x is so much better than windows. there is no debate there.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.