Power Mac G5 Quad Benchmarks

[jbaugh]

What size UPS did you have to end up going with? My quad just shipped. I use an APC Back-UPS 800 for my Dual-1Ghz Quicksilver, but if the rumors were true about this thing having over 1000 watt power supply, I think I might need an even bigger one.

I was temporarily using my daughter's Belkin UPS ( I don't know the model number but it has "750 VA" written on it). I'm now using what looks like the same basic model except that it is "900 VA".

Like you, I am wondering if I am cutting it close. On the back of the box the unit came it are some recommendations for "Which Belkin Battery Backup is right for you". For someone like me with a multi-cpu Mac G5 and a 21 inch monitor it recommends their "Enterprise" level backup systems. On the front of the box is a label that says, "For high-end computers and office equipment". No mention of this being an Enterprise level device though.

Maybe someone here on this forum who is more knowledgeable about power requirements can help us on this one. But for now I am connecting only my G5, 21 inch cinema display and two external Firewire HDs to the UPS.
John

 

[contoursvt]

Well I'm using an APC brand backups 1000va like this one http://www.famoustelephone.com/promotions/images/apc_rs.jpg which is something I picked up from staples for like $179 on sale a while back.

The box its on is a dual xeon 3ghz, 3 scsi drives, x800xt video, 2gig ram, two optical drives. Monitor is a dell 21" trinitron but I dont run the monitor off the UPS, well not off the battery anyway, just on surge. I've set the UPS to shut the computer down when it gets down to 5 mins remaining.

So far the computer seems to run the UPS at around 40% load when I'm doing light stuff and about 65% load under extreme stress. I think its more than enough. If I did add a monitor to that, it would probably push it a bit too close to the edge for my liking...

 

[JRM PowerPod]

I just ran Cinebench on my quad with a 7800gt

I did the photoshop test as well it took 16secs compared to the PowerBook in my sig which takes 2:30.

I'm on my PB right now and dont have the exact results of theQuad, but from memory

Single Proc rendering : 350
Multiple : 1008
So multiplier is : 2.8

Shading 4d : Cant remember (will update)
Software :1137 (disappointing)
Hardware 2502

It's a beast of a machine
4GB, 1TB, 7800GT, Wireless and Bluetooth

Though i swear to god that the room it is in is about 5 degrees hotter than any other room after running it for a day

The radial blur test in photoshop blew me away, 16secs, my PowerBook takes frickin 150secs and even my brothers fully loaded Inspiron with 2Ghz Centrino, 2GB ram, 100gb 128mb graphics still takes 98secs

Also the G5 enclosure makes my cinema display look tiny

 

[npm]

Has anyone had a chance to run the Driver Heaven Photoshop test suite yet?

Instructions here: http://www.driverheaven.net/photoshop/
Mac download here: http://www.driverheaven.net/photoshop/dhpsbench2.zip
Results for comparison here (there's a few PowerMacs in there): http://www.driverheavendownloads.net/photoshop/results.php

Cheers, Joe

I am surprised no one has tried this yet (that I saw anyway...)

PHOTOSHOP CS
Quad 2.5, 6.5GB RAM, 7800 GT, WD Caviar

1: Texturiser Test (1)
5.3 seconds

2: CYMK Colour Conversion
1.1 seconds

3: RGB Colour Conversion
1.2 seconds

4: Dust and Scratches
1.8 seconds

5: Watercolour
24.0 seconds

6: Texturiser Test (2)
5.5 seconds

7: Stained Glass
8.3 seconds

8: Lighting Effects
2.8 seconds

9: Mosiac Tiles
31.3 seconds

10: Extrude
57.4 seconds

11: Smart Blur
57.8 seconds

12. Underpainting
36.6 seconds

Total time: 233.1 seconds

 

[Caesar_091]

Total time: 233.1 seconds

IMHO is really too much if these results are true

 

[Photorun]

IMHO is really too much if these results are true

No worries mate, after looking at that list it's quite clear quite a few people are posting erroneos scores, geeks tend to be braggers, braggers tend to be liars. The supposed fastest machine, er, "guy," "Da-Pwn," coming in at 6 seconds I mean, c'mon. The next fastest almost seemed like the first of the probable ones and his supposed user name is "Pimpsta," he's probably a fat, white, loser who's never kissed a girl, had a date, etc., at 128.

Looks like a forum of the figures don't lie, but the liars sure figure.

Some would make sense, a Xeon is fast, AMD chips, then near the top there's a guy with friggin' P4s putting up ridiculously suspicious figures there that there's just simply no way. Trust this site as much as you'd trust a used car salesman selling a 1972 Caddy with only 500 miles on the odometer that was "driven by an old lady, only on sunny days, when it was 72 degrees"

The quad G5 scores started appearing at 192 seconds on this highly suspect list, and that's probably about right for seconds, if there wasn't a bunch of questionable times there they'd be on the first page. My own two years old G5 2.0 came in at 263.

It should be noted that Adobe has dropped the ball somewhat on the programming of Photoshop for Mac and this would hurt some of the times here. What will be interesting is if certain other chips can be put into whatever the new PowerMac (or whatever they'll call it, maybe the MacMac if the Macbook is any indication) and can go toe to toe with some of these chips. If a Mac and a peecee get the same chip and the Mac is slower than Adobe's more and more craptacular coding for the Mac definitely is to be blamed because architecture-wise they'd be similar.

 

[Multimedia]

Quad Crushes HD Broadcast Video Twice As Fast As Dual

Just got the Quad to transcode HDTV recordings made with EyeTV2 to iPod campatible size. My old Dual 2.5 took 4x the length of the video to crush. This Quad does it in 2x the length of the video. I am not bragging. I am simply and happily reporting a FACT:

In the case of EyeTV2 broadcast HDTV recordings and real world QuickTime exporting experience, the BENCHMARK is that a Quad is fully 200% faster than the same speed 2.5 GHz Dual at crushing native HD broadcast video down to video iPod campatible mpeg4 - non-H.264, EyeTV2 "for iPod (recommended) 640 x 360 (198 KB/sec) preset.

 

[melgross]

PS programming

Adobe hasn'r just fallen down on the Mac version.

I beta test PS, and can say that the biggest surprise was to find out that PS only recognises TWO cpu's, or cores!

Just two.

That's why the Quad can't achieve the scores it should.

Take about 40% off the best times for the Quad, and that's what we should be expecting from PS, if it DID use all four cores.

I'm told that they are working on this, but that we likely won't see it until the next release.

 

[npm]

ua

Adobe hasn'r just fallen down on the Mac version.

I beta test PS, and can say that the biggest surprise was to find out that PS only recognises TWO cpu's, or cores!

Just two.

That's why the Quad can't achieve the scores it should.

Take about 40% off the best times for the Quad, and that's what we should be expecting from PS, if it DID use all four cores.

I'm told that they are working on this, but that we likely won't see it until the next release.

Some of the PS filters will use all four cores. For example, the spinning horse test which uses the radial blur takes 19 seconds and all fours pop to life. It is a beautiful thing to watch.

For tasks that only see two cores, there is still a benefit with the Quad system. The two core app (or process) can have 200% cpu because the system and other processes can use the left over cpu's to run. There isn't a lot of speed gained, but there is a lot of productivity gained. You can encode a DVD or crunch mp4 at 200% while working at 200% in FCP or PS!

I wish all apps were Quad enabled and am shocked that FCP is not, but there is a hint of silver lining with the productivity gains.

 

[cgc]

For comparison, my PowerBook (15" Alu) 1.25 G4 got a 102.80

Brian

Depends on what version of XBench you are using...the most recent version uses a different scale, so if you're comparing an old score to the new score it will be severly skewed.

 

[melgross]

Some of the PS filters will use all four cores. For example, the spinning horse test which uses the radial blur takes 19 seconds and all fours pop to life. It is a beautiful thing to watch.

For tasks that only see two cores, there is still a benefit with the Quad system. The two core app (or process) can have 200% cpu because the system and other processes can use the left over cpu's to run. There isn't a lot of speed gained, but there is a lot of productivity gained. You can encode a DVD or crunch mp4 at 200% while working at 200% in FCP or PS!

I wish all apps were Quad enabled and am shocked that FCP is not, but there is a hint of silver lining with the productivity gains.

Only a handful of filters work on four cores. Adobe is working on this.

We should see FCP working on four by the time the NAB show is on in April.

 

[contoursvt]

Figured I'll have a go at it with this driverheaven test as well as cinebench and other stuff. Box is a dual 3.0 Xeon Nocona with 2gig DDR400 ram and 3x 36gig scsi drives. Memory assignment was what ever photoshop CS2 sets - I believe its 50% of system ram. The OS is XP SP2.

===============Driverheaven PS test================================

1.3 - texturizer
3.2 - cmyk
3.8 - rgb
2.5 - dust and scratches
23.6 - water colour
2.0 - texturizer
9.1 - stained glass
4.4 - lighting effects
18.6 - mosaic tiles
53.3 - extrude
47.1 - smart blur
22.1 - underpainting

total - 191.0 seconds




==============32bit Cinebench test=====================================

CINEBENCH 2003 v1

Tester : Tino

Processor : Xeon
MHz : 3000
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : XPPRO

Graphics Card : X800XT
Resolution : 1280x960
Color Depth : 32


Rendering (Single CPU): 266 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 578 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 2.18

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 341 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1390 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2983 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 8.74




=================64bit Cinebench scores============================

CINEBENCH 2003 v1

Tester : Tino

Processor : Xeon
MHz : 3000
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : XP64

Graphics Card : X800XT
Resolution : 1280x960
Color Depth : 32


Rendering (Single CPU): 326 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 680 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 2.08

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 372 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1405 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2677 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 7.19




========Horsie photoshop CS2 rotate test=========================

took 30 seconds (29.6 to be exact)

 

[Multimedia]

Quad Can Only Get Faster and Faster

Some of the PS filters will use all four cores. For example, the spinning horse test which uses the radial blur takes 19 seconds and all fours pop to life. It is a beautiful thing to watch.

For tasks that only see two cores, there is still a benefit with the Quad system. The two core app (or process) can have 200% cpu because the system and other processes can use the left over cpu's to run. There isn't a lot of speed gained, but there is a lot of productivity gained. You can encode a DVD or crunch mp4 at 200% while working at 200% in FCP or PS!

I wish all apps were Quad enabled and am shocked that FCP is not, but there is a hint of silver lining with the productivity gains.

Only a handful of filters work on four cores. Adobe is working on this.

We should see FCP working on four by the time the NAB show is on in April.

I think we will see a lot revealed in April. When the Universal FCS ships by the end of March, Apple will probably tell us it uses all four OR four core aware Universal FCS will be promised at NAB as a future free upgrade ASAP or perhaps even with a target date for completion.

I totally agree with Newbie npm that the Quad is great for multitasking. I think this is more important to keep in mind than wiether or not an applicaiton can see only one, two or all four right now. When I was trying to crush video from EyeTV2 to iPod size on the Dual 2.5 it would bring the computer to its knees like back in 1984-86 when you had to take breaks to add a period in PageMaker. I mean it really felt like an old 68000 Mac it was taht bad. With all four crushing, which it does use, there is still enough headroom to multitask on other applications. Quad owners have the advantage of watching Apple and 3rd party developers release updates that use all 4 processors so our computers will be going faster and faster over the next year or so until the 8 core systems ship next Spring 2007 when some of us will want to double our multiprocessing pleasure ASAP.

I am so glad I was able to sell my Dual 2.5 for $2500 last week after buying a Quad from the Apple refurb page for $3029 including sales tax. Only had to order 4 GB RAM ($300) to take it to 6. One of the benefits of buying refurbs is that they often ship over specification. Mine was supposed to have only 512 MB of RAM in the form of 2 x 256MB sticks. It came with 2 x 1GB sticks.

Any lurkers here who haven't made the leap from Dual to Quad, I say Dual's days are numbered and that number is LESS THAN 365.

 

[JW Pepper]

Good Benchmarks

Lightwave may be an obscure application, but I think it is the best benchmark for comparing crossplatform hardware performance. There is no monkey business just tough tests.

Take a look at Chris' Lightwave Benchmarks

It won't be long before a MacPro benchmark will appear here as these guys will go out and buy one if it saves them wasted rendering time.

 

[playaj82]

Depends on what version of XBench you are using...the most recent version uses a different scale, so if you're comparing an old score to the new score it will be severly skewed.

My score of 110 with my powerbook went to 42 when the newest version came out.

 

[DakotaGuy]

Wow this thread was brought back from the dead!

Now why again are we discussing these "old" slow computers??? Heck it's been proven that even a Core Duo will outrun most G5's, so it's time to completely forget about PowerPC products. They are done!!! Gone!!! FOREVER! As Steve would say...Obsolete!

 

[playaj82]

Wow this thread was brought back from the dead!

Now why again are we discussing these "old" slow computers??? Heck it's been proven that even a Core Duo will outrun most G5's, so it's time to completely forget about PowerPC products. They are done!!! Gone!!! FOREVER! As Steve would say...Obsolete!

But many of us are still waiting for that sacred Rev. B before diving into the Intel world.

 

[JW Pepper]

Heck it's been proven that even a Core Duo will outrun most G5's, so it's time to completely forget about PowerPC products. They are done!!! Gone!!! FOREVER! As Steve would say...Obsolete!

You can't be serious. I have a dual 2.5 G5, cost a fortune it cannot be obsolete, surley it will be ok for the next 10 years?

 

[DakotaGuy]

But many of us are still waiting for that sacred Rev. B before diving into the Intel world.

Why not make the jump??? I did with the iMac Core Duo and could not be happier. To your credit, the Rev. A MacBooks have turned out to be, well this harsh language, but sort of a lemon, like the first iMac G5. However I don't see that problem happening with the new MacPro's.

 

[DakotaGuy]

You can't be serious. I have a dual 2.5 G5, cost a fortune I cannot be obsolete, surley it will be ok for the next 10 years?

Hey that is a nice computer and I am sure it is plenty fast, but if you asked Steve he would tell you it's "obsolete!"

If you have ever seen the video from Saturday Night Live when they have "Steve Jobs" on Weekend Update introducing the new iPod, you would get the joke.

I don't think any computer will last 10 years...things in technology change too fast, however you should be good for 5 years as long as Apple keeps supporting PowerPC in their software updates.

BTW...sorry for posting twice in a row...i kind of got ahead of myself...

 

[playaj82]

Why not make the jump??? I did with the iMac Core Duo and could not be happier. To your credit, the Rev. A MacBooks have turned out to be, well this harsh language, but sort of a lemon, like the first iMac G5. However I don't see that problem happening with the new MacPro's.

I also can't make the jump because I have a G4 and a G5 that I have to get rid of first.

 

[sauria]

Obsolete

My Quad is planty fast. I'll be using a Xeon Quad at work and we'll see if it's "faster" at most things other than benchmarks.