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.
PowerMac 1.6GHz Benchmarks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Regarding the pic...
the tower looks good, though i am still distraught about only one optical drive.
the tower looks good, though i am still distraught about only one optical drive.
Re: Re: Re: Re: a Photoshop test is what I need....
Why would you learn basic AFTER C++?
btw, using Java with Project builder is a really poor implimentation. If that's what you're doing, I'd suggest Cocoa.
Originally posted by scem0
yes, a lot of surfing.
But a lot of programming too (the more the better). I know C++, Im learning basic and java. I hope to be using all 3 of those languages a lot.
And with the amount of time I spend on my computer even if all I did was surf it wouldnt be overkill. If I save a hundredth of a second on every webpage I went to I'd save a BUNCH of time.
scem0
Why would you learn basic AFTER C++?
btw, using Java with Project builder is a really poor implimentation. If that's what you're doing, I'd suggest Cocoa.
im having trouble understanding the benchmark results..
why are there two sets of number 1) and 2) which machine is which?
where can i find cinebench results to compare too
why are there two sets of number 1) and 2) which machine is which?
where can i find cinebench results to compare too
Originally posted by mim
Stella's correct. The memory is running at full bus speed (or vise-versa), making L3 irrelevent. Those 8Gb's ARE your L3
The memory isn't running at full bus speed. The FSB is 1/2 the clock speed of the processor. This FSB speed is to the chipset, not to memory. Memory will run at 400MHz or whatever it runs at to the chipset, not the processor.
further proof
That people will complain about anything.
Witness:
The new LOW END machine is overall faster than the previous top of the line machine and people are complaining about the speed.
You do realize this is the first time Apple (or any company I can think of save Digital with the Alpha) has released a new line of machines that are bottom to top faster than their previous line. Don't you people remember the slow g4s? How on earth can you complain about the new low end box in un-optimized benchmarks besting the previous top of the line?
If anything this benchmarks shows the 1.6ghz part isn't just trash like most people had assumed.
That people will complain about anything.
Witness:
The new LOW END machine is overall faster than the previous top of the line machine and people are complaining about the speed.
You do realize this is the first time Apple (or any company I can think of save Digital with the Alpha) has released a new line of machines that are bottom to top faster than their previous line. Don't you people remember the slow g4s? How on earth can you complain about the new low end box in un-optimized benchmarks besting the previous top of the line?
If anything this benchmarks shows the 1.6ghz part isn't just trash like most people had assumed.
DDR 400 memory is 200 mhz that is effectively 400 because access is 2 times per cycle.
The G5 uses a dual channel memory architecture so it will be 800 mhz. The 1ghz bus has some overhead so even though the memory is not running at 1ghz you should still see some performance gain in memory related tests.
BTW - since it is dual channel you will have to upgrade memory 2 sticks at a time.
okay well here is a comparison of the G5 and my Athlon 1.4 running Cinebench 2003
G5 1.6 on Left Athlon 1.4 on right
Single CPU Render test:
158.2 sec 152.2sec for PC
Open GL Hardware Lighting test:
1) 13.16 sec; 7.8 fps 11.89; 8.6 fps
2) 4.18 sec; 21.5 fps 8.69, 10.4 fps
1466559 polygons/sec 706440 p/sec
Open GL Software Lighting test:
1) 19.96 sec; 5.1 fps 15.96; 6.4fps
2) 9.30 sec; 9.7 fps 10.54; 8.5 fps
659952 polygons/sec 582421 p/sec
Cinema4D Shading test:
1) 50.19 sec; 2.0 fps 62.23; 1.6fps
2) 24.62 sec; 3.7 fps 24.70; 3.6fps
249291 polygons/sec 248514 p/sec
overall my new g5 1.6 isnt very much better (speed wise) to my current Athlon 1.4.
luckily i can look forward to running jaguar and panther and not XP anymore.. but i was hoping for more of a performance Jump
mt pc is also running an All in Wonder Raedon 7500
G5 1.6 on Left Athlon 1.4 on right
Single CPU Render test:
158.2 sec 152.2sec for PC
Open GL Hardware Lighting test:
1) 13.16 sec; 7.8 fps 11.89; 8.6 fps
2) 4.18 sec; 21.5 fps 8.69, 10.4 fps
1466559 polygons/sec 706440 p/sec
Open GL Software Lighting test:
1) 19.96 sec; 5.1 fps 15.96; 6.4fps
2) 9.30 sec; 9.7 fps 10.54; 8.5 fps
659952 polygons/sec 582421 p/sec
Cinema4D Shading test:
1) 50.19 sec; 2.0 fps 62.23; 1.6fps
2) 24.62 sec; 3.7 fps 24.70; 3.6fps
249291 polygons/sec 248514 p/sec
overall my new g5 1.6 isnt very much better (speed wise) to my current Athlon 1.4.
luckily i can look forward to running jaguar and panther and not XP anymore.. but i was hoping for more of a performance Jump
mt pc is also running an All in Wonder Raedon 7500
notEven why is it faulty I thought i did a great job I was proud of myself no I'm sad at least we agree
the right benchmarks will mean a lot to the buyer, someone who makes his money on PS will not make much use of a SPEC benchmark, the SPEC results could be bad but PS filters could be scream! real world tests are more important to me.
We don't have Apple Stores here, I was just wondering if someone could walk into one and take his PS project or anything else Maya FCP or even code to compile and see how fast it is on the machines there compared to what ever he has back home. that would be the ultimate benchmark to anyone.
porovaara that's a good point! and i don't know how that passed right by me! but I seem to remember that the 733Mhz G4 was the top of the line, then Apple made it the bottom of the line, I don't remember any other machines that this happened to, I only remember this cuz my brother bought the 733 G4.
I thought i did a great job I was proud of myself no I'm sad at least we agree the right benchmarks will mean a lot to the buyer, someone who makes his money on PS will not make much use of a SPEC benchmark, the SPEC results could be bad but PS filters could be scream! real world tests are more important to me.
We don't have Apple Stores here, I was just wondering if someone could walk into one and take his PS project or anything else Maya FCP or even code to compile and see how fast it is on the machines there compared to what ever he has back home. that would be the ultimate benchmark to anyone.
porovaara that's a good point! and i don't know how that passed right by me! but I seem to remember that the 733Mhz G4 was the top of the line, then Apple made it the bottom of the line, I don't remember any other machines that this happened to, I only remember this cuz my brother bought the 733 G4.
I never noticed that - but sure enough - you cannot get a single G5 configuration without 2 chips (2 x 128MB for the base configuration 1.6 and so forth).
Sucky sucky
just a note on the simple observation side of things (benchmarks excluded) that thing is huge. the side-by-side shot of the G5 next to the G4 is really eye opening as to the overall size...
I have to go and clear a little more space of my desk, and make sure there's no low-lying shelves in the vicinity.
I have to go and clear a little more space of my desk, and make sure there's no low-lying shelves in the vicinity.
Re: Re: a Photoshop test is what I need....
I don't think it's even the case that Omniweb (or Safari, or other browsers) start a new thread for each window, and it certainly isn't the case that the rendering within a window is multithreaded. The bottom line is that if all you are doing is web browsing, then dual processors will not help you, especially if you are only loading one page at any given time.
But geez, even my iBook 500 loads pages at a decent speed (using Safari). It's just when I am trying to load a page *and* do something else that it really starts to choke (and that is a case in which dual processors is great).
Yeah, that would be a better use of the G5's horsepower. Nobody knows at the moment, but it is safe to say that a single G5 will be significantly faster in the long run than a single G4 (dual G4 vs. single G5 is more questionable).
Honestly, these benchmarks don't look that great.
My iBook 500 renders the Cinebench scene in 10 minutes even and scores a 44. That means that (scaling linearly), in this benchmark, the 1.6 Ghz G5 is equivalent to a 2 Ghz G3, and scores around 170 (i.e. equivalent to a 1.7 Ghz Pentium 4). My conclusion would be that the G5 is not making full use of its two double-precision FPUs: Maxon needs to recompile the app (at the very least).
My iBook 500 completes the Cinebench 4D Shading Tests in 208 sec and 87 sec respectively. That would put the 1.6 Ghz G5 on par with a 2.1 Ghz G3 and 1.8 Ghz G3 respectively (linearly scaled). It's not clear how the score is calculated between the two scenes, but assuming that the G5 works out to about a 1.95 Ghz G3, then its score would be equivalent to 200, i.e. a 2 Ghz Pentium 4.
The OpenGL Cinebench tests are not indicative of processor performance (since they rely to varying degrees on the graphics card), so I wouldn't use them for any comparisons.
I would also be very careful about trying to infer anything from the Xbench numbers. Xbench is a highly synthetic benchmark, and as such it is actually more sensitive to minor differences in processor architecture than most real world apps are. It is not a good indication of real world performance, and in fact the results don't even make sense between G5s. For example, the Dual 2 Ghz G5 scored 391/371 on the fp test, whereas the 1.6 Ghz G5 scored only 207/232. It is my understanding that the fp test is NOT multithreaded, so the Dual 2 Ghz and single 1.6 Ghz scores should actually be quite close together (but they're not, which means someone's benchmark is messed up). Also, the Dual G5 scored only 57 in Altivec Basic whereas the 1.6 Ghz G5 scored 95 on the same test! Needless to say, that is NOT reflective performance (the Dual 2 Ghz should never be SLOWER than the Single 1.6 Ghz). So, like I said, you really should just competely ignore the XBench numbers.
Actually, I guess in retrospect this is a pretty strong showing for a brand new CPU. At least it is actually showing a 10 to 20 percent INCREASE in performance per clock cycle on unoptimized apps (i.e. Cinebench), as compared to the G3 and the P4. Both the MPC 7450 (i.e. "G4e") and the Pentium 4 were actually anywhere from 30 to 50 percent SLOWER per clock cycle on unoptimized apps when compared to the processors that they replaced (the MPC 7400, i.e. "G4", and the Pentium III, respectively).
Once more software is compiled for the G5, it will really be on fire. I suspect it will easily be 50% faster per clock cycle than the G4 (and also the P4) in many apps. A friend of mine at Adobe said that they actually ran a massive Photoshop benchmark on the G5 that took hours to complete, and it really was twice as fast as the G4 (presumably Dual 1.42). The thing that is really impressive about this is that the Altivec unit on the G5 is actually slightly *weaker* than that of the G4 (though it does have superior memory bandwidth to compensate), so that indicates that the scalar code was running *more* than twice as fast on the 2 Ghz G5 as compared to the 1.42 Ghz G4.
I don't think it's even the case that Omniweb (or Safari, or other browsers) start a new thread for each window, and it certainly isn't the case that the rendering within a window is multithreaded. The bottom line is that if all you are doing is web browsing, then dual processors will not help you, especially if you are only loading one page at any given time.
But geez, even my iBook 500 loads pages at a decent speed (using Safari). It's just when I am trying to load a page *and* do something else that it really starts to choke (and that is a case in which dual processors is great).
Yeah, that would be a better use of the G5's horsepower. Nobody knows at the moment, but it is safe to say that a single G5 will be significantly faster in the long run than a single G4 (dual G4 vs. single G5 is more questionable).
Honestly, these benchmarks don't look that great.
My iBook 500 renders the Cinebench scene in 10 minutes even and scores a 44. That means that (scaling linearly), in this benchmark, the 1.6 Ghz G5 is equivalent to a 2 Ghz G3, and scores around 170 (i.e. equivalent to a 1.7 Ghz Pentium 4). My conclusion would be that the G5 is not making full use of its two double-precision FPUs: Maxon needs to recompile the app (at the very least).
My iBook 500 completes the Cinebench 4D Shading Tests in 208 sec and 87 sec respectively. That would put the 1.6 Ghz G5 on par with a 2.1 Ghz G3 and 1.8 Ghz G3 respectively (linearly scaled). It's not clear how the score is calculated between the two scenes, but assuming that the G5 works out to about a 1.95 Ghz G3, then its score would be equivalent to 200, i.e. a 2 Ghz Pentium 4.
The OpenGL Cinebench tests are not indicative of processor performance (since they rely to varying degrees on the graphics card), so I wouldn't use them for any comparisons.
I would also be very careful about trying to infer anything from the Xbench numbers. Xbench is a highly synthetic benchmark, and as such it is actually more sensitive to minor differences in processor architecture than most real world apps are. It is not a good indication of real world performance, and in fact the results don't even make sense between G5s. For example, the Dual 2 Ghz G5 scored 391/371 on the fp test, whereas the 1.6 Ghz G5 scored only 207/232. It is my understanding that the fp test is NOT multithreaded, so the Dual 2 Ghz and single 1.6 Ghz scores should actually be quite close together (but they're not, which means someone's benchmark is messed up). Also, the Dual G5 scored only 57 in Altivec Basic whereas the 1.6 Ghz G5 scored 95 on the same test! Needless to say, that is NOT reflective performance (the Dual 2 Ghz should never be SLOWER than the Single 1.6 Ghz). So, like I said, you really should just competely ignore the XBench numbers.
Actually, I guess in retrospect this is a pretty strong showing for a brand new CPU. At least it is actually showing a 10 to 20 percent INCREASE in performance per clock cycle on unoptimized apps (i.e. Cinebench), as compared to the G3 and the P4. Both the MPC 7450 (i.e. "G4e") and the Pentium 4 were actually anywhere from 30 to 50 percent SLOWER per clock cycle on unoptimized apps when compared to the processors that they replaced (the MPC 7400, i.e. "G4", and the Pentium III, respectively).
Once more software is compiled for the G5, it will really be on fire. I suspect it will easily be 50% faster per clock cycle than the G4 (and also the P4) in many apps. A friend of mine at Adobe said that they actually ran a massive Photoshop benchmark on the G5 that took hours to complete, and it really was twice as fast as the G4 (presumably Dual 1.42). The thing that is really impressive about this is that the Altivec unit on the G5 is actually slightly *weaker* than that of the G4 (though it does have superior memory bandwidth to compensate), so that indicates that the scalar code was running *more* than twice as fast on the 2 Ghz G5 as compared to the 1.42 Ghz G4.
Originally posted by Longey Nowze
notEven why is it faulty
the right benchmarks will mean a lot to the buyer, someone who makes his money on PS will not make much use of a SPEC benchmark, the SPEC results could be bad but PS filters could be scream! real world tests are more important to me.
We don't have Apple Stores here, I was just wondering if someone could walk into one and take his PS project or anything else Maya FCP or even code to compile and see how fast it is on the machines there compared to what ever he has back home. that would be the ultimate benchmark to anyone.
porovaara that's a good point! and i don't know how that passed right by me! but I seem to remember that the 733Mhz G4 was the top of the line, then Apple made it the bottom of the line, I don't remember any other machines that this happened to, I only remember this cuz my brother bought the 733 G4.
ok then, hows about.. "technically faulty".. or "will not stand in court - faulty"..
Where is Photoshop?
This is a cross platform optimized application that also reflects real world performance!! Where are the tests using it? Why run apps that are known to be unoptimized when an optimized app already exists? I don't understand it! Unless the person with the G5 doesn't have Photoshop, but I suspect a G5 owner and internet benchmark poster would have it! All the excitment has me worked up. But really, I would love to see a Photoshop benchmark.
This is a cross platform optimized application that also reflects real world performance!! Where are the tests using it? Why run apps that are known to be unoptimized when an optimized app already exists? I don't understand it! Unless the person with the G5 doesn't have Photoshop, but I suspect a G5 owner and internet benchmark poster would have it! All the excitment has me worked up. But really, I would love to see a Photoshop benchmark.
Originally posted by notEven
ok then, hows about.. "technically faulty".. or "will not stand in court - faulty"..
no that wont do I'm still sad
only a DP G5 with 8GB RAM and the ATI 9800 would make me happy again, the two 23" HD Cinema displays would return my pride Thank You
MaT
I'll forgive your ignorance, and tell you that DDR400 is actually 200MHz RAM doubled to 400, not 400 doubled to 800.
The main point being that accessing memory doesn't saturate the bus - so you (theoretically) have access at full speed to all your installed ram.
Sorry my other post was a big vauge.
In no way do those benchmarks represent the performance of Apps run with GCC 3.3 with the G5 profile flag set. You people need to understand that the Compiler organizes and aligns the instructions in the object code to match the profile of the processor. So here you have this highly parallelized, super scalar G5 running instructions optimized for a G4 pipeline and functional units. It's like putting two 14 wheelers on the road with only one pickup trucks load. It's a ridiculous benchmark to judge G5 native apps. Though it is fine to see how current Apps will run even before they are recompiled.
That is why the demos shown at the WWDC keynote were of quickly recompiled Apps with no further tweaking done. That is a two times performance gain over a G4 native App! So take a look at these benchmarks and multiply or divide by two (whatever being the case.) According to Apple, Cocoa apps that dynamically link to the public frameworks will automatically benefit from 10.2.7's and 10.3's up-to-date and properly profiled code. However, re-compiling is not the end all in performance gains. Programmers relooking at their code to take advantage of the G5 and its architecture further could see 10X performance gains. Apple demonstrated increading the performance of an OpenSource app by 24X simply by optimizing it for the G5 at one of their WWDC sessions.
That is why the demos shown at the WWDC keynote were of quickly recompiled Apps with no further tweaking done. That is a two times performance gain over a G4 native App! So take a look at these benchmarks and multiply or divide by two (whatever being the case.) According to Apple, Cocoa apps that dynamically link to the public frameworks will automatically benefit from 10.2.7's and 10.3's up-to-date and properly profiled code. However, re-compiling is not the end all in performance gains. Programmers relooking at their code to take advantage of the G5 and its architecture further could see 10X performance gains. Apple demonstrated increading the performance of an OpenSource app by 24X simply by optimizing it for the G5 at one of their WWDC sessions.
...and since it's dual channel (gotta add those DDR modules in pairs) you get 800MHz performance out of it. (roughly)
P4's do the same thing, but they don't have the FSB that the G5 has which exceeds that memory speed either.
does this mean that every app has to be recompiled in a special G5 version to take advantage of it? the PS update isn't a complete recompile, yet it still adds tonnes of speed, supposedly.
Let's just take a minute and think about all we're discussing here. Seriously. Do this before you quickly hit ``Reply'' or ``Quote'' on what I'm about to say.
First -
We're arguing over inaccurate benchmarks. Think about this for a second. Does anyone remember when the Power PC came out? Remember the difference in performance there? Remember how HORRIBLY slow 68k coded apps were on the original PPC, yet everyone pitched a fit because the PPC didn't seem to be a major jump in performance. Why? Simply because the benchmarks weren't designed to take advantage of the PowerPC architecture.
The bottom line on the first point:
This is the same thing.
For those of you that speak PC, this happens every time Intel releases a new improved chip. It always has functions and features unheard of, and thus not coded for. This will CONTINUE to happen for years to come - every time a new chip is developed. Developers write apps for what they have access to. Developers haven't written software to take advantage of the G5, and thus the advantages of its new and improved technology won't be realized until this happens.
Second:
If you're asking how much faster a G5 draws web pages and surfs the internet over a G4 - I suggest you do further research before you completely decide to spend $1999+ on a new G5. Same applies if you currently own a PC and you are planning on making the switch solely on the G5 hype, and because ``everyone else is doing'', please consider carefully. While Apple will happily take your money, sure, your false expectations I fear will lead you in the complete opposite direction.
Furthermore, if you own a machine capable of it, perhaps its time to upgrade that ol' graphics card to work with Quartz Extreme?
Macs for years have been made bigger and better for those musicians, photographers, desktop publishers, (now) gamers, and video artists (for lack of a better word). Think about Jobs' very own Pixar. This is the union of the products his two companies, as Apple has finally produced a machine suitable for their use (and Mac OS is graduating to a state along with said hardware to be blessed with Renderman).
If you do any of the above - my hat goes off to you. You will soon know (if you have ordered one) the truth - and while we may piss on each other's comments to our heart's content you (as the creative mind behind the Mac) will know the difference.
Apple wouldn't spend millions developing a COMPLETELY new inside and out flagship computer if just to make it ``slightly'' faster. Think G3 to G4. Same case, different color. Think 604e to G3. We were beige until our younger brother was born into a colorful case. The G5 is entirely different inside and out - between materials used, technology developed, and time spent in developing it, this is the first machine in years that Apple has tossed out all notions of what they USED to sell. Think January 24th, 1984. Think the birth of the Macintosh. Think different.
This is the FIRST day that apple has sprung the G5 from their loins to the public. Don't be so quick to judge. See it with your own eyes and by all means go with what you believe. Believe it when you see it, instead of relying on inaccurate data.
First -
We're arguing over inaccurate benchmarks. Think about this for a second. Does anyone remember when the Power PC came out? Remember the difference in performance there? Remember how HORRIBLY slow 68k coded apps were on the original PPC, yet everyone pitched a fit because the PPC didn't seem to be a major jump in performance. Why? Simply because the benchmarks weren't designed to take advantage of the PowerPC architecture.
The bottom line on the first point:
This is the same thing.
For those of you that speak PC, this happens every time Intel releases a new improved chip. It always has functions and features unheard of, and thus not coded for. This will CONTINUE to happen for years to come - every time a new chip is developed. Developers write apps for what they have access to. Developers haven't written software to take advantage of the G5, and thus the advantages of its new and improved technology won't be realized until this happens.
Second:
If you're asking how much faster a G5 draws web pages and surfs the internet over a G4 - I suggest you do further research before you completely decide to spend $1999+ on a new G5. Same applies if you currently own a PC and you are planning on making the switch solely on the G5 hype, and because ``everyone else is doing'', please consider carefully. While Apple will happily take your money, sure, your false expectations I fear will lead you in the complete opposite direction.
Furthermore, if you own a machine capable of it, perhaps its time to upgrade that ol' graphics card to work with Quartz Extreme?
Macs for years have been made bigger and better for those musicians, photographers, desktop publishers, (now) gamers, and video artists (for lack of a better word). Think about Jobs' very own Pixar. This is the union of the products his two companies, as Apple has finally produced a machine suitable for their use (and Mac OS is graduating to a state along with said hardware to be blessed with Renderman).
If you do any of the above - my hat goes off to you. You will soon know (if you have ordered one) the truth - and while we may piss on each other's comments to our heart's content you (as the creative mind behind the Mac) will know the difference.
Apple wouldn't spend millions developing a COMPLETELY new inside and out flagship computer if just to make it ``slightly'' faster. Think G3 to G4. Same case, different color. Think 604e to G3. We were beige until our younger brother was born into a colorful case. The G5 is entirely different inside and out - between materials used, technology developed, and time spent in developing it, this is the first machine in years that Apple has tossed out all notions of what they USED to sell. Think January 24th, 1984. Think the birth of the Macintosh. Think different.
This is the FIRST day that apple has sprung the G5 from their loins to the public. Don't be so quick to judge. See it with your own eyes and by all means go with what you believe. Believe it when you see it, instead of relying on inaccurate data.
That's the tallest Mac I have ever seen. It even beats out my old 9500. Sad. Pathetic. I was so happy, now I'm depressed.
Oh, well... I'll still buy one when the time comes.
Dan
Oh, well... I'll still buy one when the time comes.
Dan
g5vsg4vsg3
I'd agree that this is a huge change, but I don't think that the G3-G4 change was as comprable. the G4 was much more similar to the g3 (from what little I know) with the exception of AltiVec, which is very useful in some apps, and completely useless in others.
I'd agree that this is a huge change, but I don't think that the G3-G4 change was as comprable. the G4 was much more similar to the g3 (from what little I know) with the exception of AltiVec, which is very useful in some apps, and completely useless in others.