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

Power Mac G5 Quad Benchmarks

jiggie2g said:
I wouldn't exactly call a Dual 2.7ghz G5 a mid end machine that was clocked 200mhz faster per CPU then my X2 and has 2 faster frontside buses and I still managed to spank it. :eek:

I'm not going to go up against a Quad (which by the way is not even shipping yet) Unless I have a Quad Opteron then we start The Armageddon. :D

Maybe I should dust off the old Athlon XP-M 2400+ @2.3ghz in my closet and give your PM G3 / iMac G5 a good trashing.:p

BTW: Here are some of my older CPU Cinebench 2003 scores

Athlon XP-M 2400+(Barton)@2.3ghz scored 263 CB-CPU

Athlon 64 3000+(Venice) @1.8ghz scored 293 CB-CPU , @2.6ghz / 356 CB-CPU
Click to expand...

how much ram did he have in that dual 2.7? he had a worse video card for sure

its all very well bragging about online benchmarks but lets try some real world photoshop tests and see who is bragging?


I'm so looking forward to getting my quad with 7800.
 
Just for the fun of it, XP Laptop...

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : me

Processor : FSC Lifebook S6120
MHz : 1.6GHz
Number of CPUs : 1
Operating System : Windows XP SP2

Graphics Card : Intel 82852/82855 GM/GME Graphics Controller
Resolution : 1024*768
Color Depth : 32bit

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 198 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU


Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 212 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 585 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 559 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 2.75

****************************************************
Click to expand...

groovebuster
 
Xbench should never be used by anyone for anything. According to Xbench, my 1.4 Ghz G4 has an L3 cache running at 4.17 Ghz.
 
here´s a cinebench from my Dell 3,2Ghz 512mb RAM, Intel Graphics Work Station, it´s fast but working with my PowerBook is much comfortable:
CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : hans

Processor : dell
MHz : 3,2
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : xp

Graphics Card : int
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 270 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 333 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.23

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 354 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 998 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 957 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 2.82

****************************************************
 
jiggie2g said:
I love Macs but I hate Apple's let's rip off the customer mentality , whenit comes to hardware. so enjoy your Quad, but you are going to cry in about 18 months when Intel and AMD put those chips into sub $1000 USD PC's. Just like they are doing now with the Dual cores.
and AMD have those chips in sub
Click to expand...

Companies are going to put quad core into a sub $1000 USD PC?

Don't worry, people who bought one of the fastest computers on the market WILL be enjoying it. You may think it's expensive, but the fact that it's the fastest (or 2nd fastest....who knows) computer on the market makes it worth its price. If you do buy a $1000 PC, you're not getting the best, so its not even comparable. Its like comparing your Kia with a BMW.

Also, a quad core Opteron system costs $2000 to $3000 more than the quad core Mac with the same specs (although the RAM will be slightly slower in the quad core Opteron, despite the system costing a lot more). If you don't believe me, remember that Google is your friend. You'll find it.
 
Real World Tests

Someone point me to a real world test and I'll give it a go.

Cheers,

Pie
 
BakedBeans said:
unfortunately i have a rule when buying computers, if the same store sells 'food/candy' and has drugs in its name then i look elsewhere :)
Click to expand...
It's not as bad as it looks. :D
 
Redundant

At first I was disappointed with the figures as it only showed an improvement of 38 % which was a lot less than the touted 50 - 80% but when I ran the XBench on my own set-up I realised it is a waste of time reading anything into these figures as I received a score of 140.55 on a rev B 1.8 iMac!

I' dropping XBench in the bin ....now!
 
Hmm......

EdwinSneller said:
Here is my Dual 2.7 Cinebench score:

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : sneller

Processor : PowerMac G5 Dual
MHz : 2.7
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.4.2

Graphics Card : ATI 9650 256MB
Resolution : 1680x1050
Color Depth : millions

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 385 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 663 CB-CPU


****************************************************
Click to expand...
my dual 2.7 with ATI x800 xt / 4 GB Ram was 702 CB-CPU
 
jiggie2g said:
Your point , Do u think most system builders paid $300 for XP Pro. I've seen more cracked XP Pro Discs passed around then AOL sign up discs. The Pirates are going to Increase OSX's market share more than anyone in the coming years.

Arrrr Matey there be cracked Tigers in the Bay (Hint Hint).:D
Click to expand...
I bought my OEM copy of XP Pro a while back, same time as building my system, so must be in the minority, (already know I am in fact). In the next 6-12 months, I will probably be using Fedora Core 3 on my PC and running a PB alongside it, (with the PB being used more), but still keep XP Pro running alongside Fedora. Not going for the clean break, but more of a gradual switch.

Think when it comes to Vista though, a cracked disc will be very tempting for something I will use rarely.
 
Pie, i hear you're from wales! Me too :) I would so email you but you've blocked it on the forums!

Get in touch! My profile has the details!

Oh and to make this post relevant to the thread:

Those Cinebench scores are awesome. I would so buy a Quad if I had ANY money what so ever. Perhaps I could spend my student loan :p... but then I wouldn't be able to eat for 3 years.

Oh well... there are certain sacrifices we must make.
 
SpaceMagic said:
Pie, i hear you're from wales! Me too :) I would so email you but you've blocked it on the forums!

Get in touch! My profile has the details!

Oh and to make this post relevant to the thread:

Those Cinebench scores are awesome. I would so buy a Quad if I had ANY money what so ever. Perhaps I could spend my student loan :p... but then I wouldn't be able to eat for 3 years.

Oh well... there are certain sacrifices we must make.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone could go as far as that. Perhaps a part-time job for the next few years would cover the two grand or so you would need to start off with. Unless you need the extra processing power from the Quad 2.5, I would say that there are cheaper Macs out there to satisfy most of our needs.
 
eAspenwood said:
My hope is that they back-pedal from the intel only stance, and take on both chips in the long term plans.

that would require a massive swallowing of pride and probably other business factors, so it probably won't happen.
Click to expand...

I've had this dream as well, but an Apple with Intel Inside on it is worth a lot of 'marketing' money to intel. the prices Apple would buy the notebook processors at vs. the other vendors would magically go up if they weren't buying it for all their system me guesses.

Also, the nightmare of having universal binaries for the third party vendors would probably kill that off, unfortunately.
 
jiggie2g said:
I love Macs but I hate Apple's let's rip off the customer mentality , whenit comes to hardware. so enjoy your Quad, but you are going to cry in about 18 months when Intel and AMD put those chips into sub $1000 USD PC's. Just like they are doing now with the Dual cores.
and AMD have those chips in sub
Click to expand...

No, I won't. Because I'll buy a dual socket quad core version and still be faster and more expensive.

The people that are going to cry are those that buy the sub $1000 multi-core system and it's about 3% faster than the previous generation system because of most applications out there won't know what to do with a multi-threaded processor.

Most of the benchmarks out there that are beautiful on the dual or better systems out there are multi-threaded.

But MS Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Quicken, whatever most regular non-power users use won't run any faster on a dual or quad core system because they don't know what to do with more execution units.

Gamers will be ticked because their machines will be slow...

Just my $0.02
 
Whoah

As you can see from the list, when comparing OpenGL performance between Windows an Mac OSX boxes with similar graphic cards, the Windows boxes are about 2x faster. It's a known problem that OpenGL is way better optimized on Windows. No hardware in the world will help you there.

regards
Andy
->
Click to expand...

Im not sure how to do this, Anyways... the Open GL is that you are comparing a 7800GTX and a 6600 on a Mac. There is obviously no comparison there.
Butts
 
The PPC's last hooray

I think these quad machine are made for those PPC people who just have to have bragging rights, now, until the Intel Macs come out, which would have to smoke the quads, else why would Apple go that way.

When we're all Intel fanboys, the people with expensive quads will feel weird having a machine that went obsolete so quickly. Still they're the early adopters who'll probably always have to have the latest and greatest. NOt me, not anymore, not when I add up what I've spent over the years playing that game...

Apple is just milking a small segment of its market, with always too much money to spend.

I doubt if any/much software which truly uses the quad PPC power will ever be written...for such a small, soon to be an always declining percentage of Mac users, as the Intel move takes hold.

I'm bewidered by those people enthusimg over a platform thats almost obsolete...the King is dead...long love the King.
 
delton05 said:
I think these quad machine are made for those PPC people who just have to have bragging rights, now, until the Intel Macs come out, which would have to smoke the quads, else why would Apple go that way.

When we're all Intel fanboys, the people with expensive quads will feel weird having a machine that went obsolete so quickly. Still they're the early adopters who'll probably always have to have the latest and greatest. NOt me, not anymore, not when I add up what I've spent over the years playing that game...

Apple is just milking a small segment of its market, with always too much money to spend.

I doubt if any/much software which truly uses the quad PPC power will ever be written...for such a small, soon to be an always declining percentage of Mac users, as the Intel move takes hold.

I'm bewidered by those people enthusimg over a platform thats almost obsolete...the King is dead...long love the King.
Click to expand...


But how long is it going to take to get quad Intel Macs? I don't think we'll see those soon. And regardless, if you need a machine, why wait a year for it if this will work fine. The performance is great and there won't be any issues with software any time soon - what about all the G5s out there now?

D
 
Abstract said:
Companies are going to put quad core into a sub $1000 USD PC?

Don't worry, people who bought one of the fastest computers on the market WILL be enjoying it. You may think it's expensive, but the fact that it's the fastest (or 2nd fastest....who knows) computer on the market makes it worth its price. If you do buy a $1000 PC, you're not getting the best, so its not even comparable. Its like comparing your Kia with a BMW.

Also, a quad core Opteron system costs $2000 to $3000 more than the quad core Mac with the same specs (although the RAM will be slightly slower in the quad core Opteron, despite the system costing a lot more). If you don't believe me, remember that Google is your friend. You'll find it.
Click to expand...

Please people stop the Car analogies it's stupid and really dosen't make any comparision to mac and PC. Guys don't buy BMW for speed/performance , they buy them so chicks will hop in and screw thier brains out. Those cars are all about showing off , not abosolute value.
 
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