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

PowerMac 1.6GHz Benchmarks

Re: Re: a Photoshop test is what I need....

Originally posted by scem0
how about programs like Internet Explorer/safari/any browser?

I spend most of my time on the internet. I want to know if dual helps page rendering a lot. If It doesnt I might get the single 1.8.

Why about just opening finder windows. Simple tasks like that, which you use all the time.

Photoshop benchmarks dont help me all that much, although I would love to see them.

How about program compiling time differences? Especially with Java compilers. I plan on doing a good amount of java on this computer, mostly for school.

scem0

edit:



I agree. I think it is performing very well. I expected less from a single processor system.
Click to expand...

Safari renders? I'm not sure, but I suspect not. Safari seems oddly single-threaded in places; not sure if that extends to the WebCore framework or not. I somewhat doubt that Internet Explorer takes advantage of multiple procs.

A dual-processor system will definitely speed up "everyday" GUI responsiveness (ie, opening Finder windows, new apps, etc).

Using gcc (or gjc) and Project Builder/XCode, compile times roughly double with a dual-proc system, although makefiles may or may not work as well (my makefiles didn't use dual procs or XCode parallel compiling, which was the final straw in me switching everything over to a Project Builder project on OSX and leaving the makefiles to Solaris/Linux only); different 'make' implementations may vary though).

Javac? I'm not sure (I don't do any Mac-based Java; all my Java is done on an old Windows box). I would suspect it uses dual procs (I believe it does on, for instance, Solaris), but can't say for certain.
 
Originally posted by Powerbook G5
Well, using both OS 9 and XP, I've found that nothing is as snappy as a well maintained Mac OS 9 running on my G3...I can only imagine how fast it would be on a newer G4 system. It makes XP seem slow, for sure, though. If Panther is as snappy as my PowerBook G3 400 MHz running at 400 MHz, I'd be really happy. If a G5 cannot produce those results, then there is something wrong...
Click to expand...

Yes, however, Windows 95 on an old 400MHz P2 is positively "snappy" as well. OS 9 is "snappy" for a reason.

IMHO, OS X 10.2.6 on my 733MHz G4 machine is as "snappy" as OS 9 running on the 500MHz G4 next to it. OS 9 is faster on identical hardware, but the difference isn't nearly as large as you are making it out to be!
 
Originally posted by BrandonRP0123
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 :)
Click to expand...

That's why you have eight slots for memory (okay, four in the 1.6, but is that also dual-channel?)

It's generally cheaper buying two 1GB sticks than one 2GB stick ...
 
Originally posted by sparkplug
Longey Nowze writes
Yes I did notice this, how exactly is this relevant? I allso noticed that they did not test a dual athlon, opteron or xeon machine, just a single g4, single g5 and single p4, does this somehow invalidate the results? no.
Click to expand...

I am quite happy with equal performance, and I can not belive that there is someone not thrilled with this. But, I think G5's scale better with 2 procs than the P4 xeon.
 
Re: Re: Re: a Photoshop test is what I need....

Originally posted by macrumors12345
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).
.... <removed> ....
OmniWeb rules !
Let's read on http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omniweb/

"The only web browser on any platform designed to harness multiple processors for the fastest web browsing possible.":D :D
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Re: Re: Re: Nasa bench 2ghz Dual

Originally posted by BrandonRP0123
Exactly. Plus the P4 is 660Mhz faster than the G5. While Mhz myth, sure - the fact remains that the G5 would have proven itself if they ran it against a 2.0Ghz P4
Click to expand...

Um, no it wouldn't have. By all projections, the 970 is NEVER set to approach more than 2/3 the top speed of the Pentium 4/5.

A key component of processor design is the tradeoff of clock speed versus calculations per clock cycle. The only measure for a chip is not "operations per cycle" but "operations per unit time".

While it would be great to have a 3.2 GHz G5 today to beat the pants off the top-of-the-line P4, that's not going to happen. Today we have 2.0GHz G5s and 3.2GHz P4s. A year from now we will have 3GHz G5s but 4.8GHz (if I recall the Intel roadmap correctly) P5s.

Of course, cost-wise you can't get a top-of-the-line dual-proc Xeon for the same money as a dual-2.0GHz G5 (assuming you want all the same features on the Xeon), but that only forces you down by a few hundred MHz, not into the equal-clockspeeds range.
 
Re: $1590 !

Originally posted by Midiplaya
Turning the color down to 16bit doesn't help. I am doing things where I need to open and close a lot of files fast. I also find that anything CPU intensive takes 3-4X's as long as a regular PC. I still prefer using OS X as my normal desktop and putting up with the performance as necesary. I really hope that I can get better performance though and snappiness out of the PC desktop.
Click to expand...

As I've said before, I completely fail to see the logic of VirtualPC to begin with. Just buy a cheapo Windows box, and a USB KVM switch (<$100) to switch between the Mac and PC. A much more flexible solution, plus you get to use a PC that is about 3-4 times as fast as anything you'll get with VPC, and you can use your Mac at the same time as your PC is churning through calculations (just switch using the KVM). Cost is slightly higher, but performance is at least passable!
 
Originally posted by kristianm
I am quite happy with equal performance, and I can not belive that there is someone not thrilled with this. But, I think G5's scale better with 2 procs than the P4 xeon.
Click to expand...

That will be true in an FSB-limitted situation. If you are processor-limitted, then the Xeon scales quite well.

OTOH, that's just the problem the G4 has had forever, so if your app scales well on Xeon (meaning 1->2 CPU) then it would have performed reasonably well on the G4 too ...
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: a Photoshop test is what I need....

Originally posted by alex06

OmniWeb rules !
Let's read on http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omniweb/

"The only web browser on any platform designed to harness multiple processors for the fastest web browsing possible.":D :D
Click to expand...

I find this claim somewhat dubious, as "harness[ing] multiple processors" is a very vague term. Does this mean that rendering is multi-threaded (not likely; it uses the same WebCore framework as Safari, so if Safari's not multi-threaded by OmniWeb's definition neither is OmniWeb!), or that the HTTP communications is multi-threaded, or that UI widgets are multi-threaded, or ...?
 
Re: That's A Big Box !!

Originally posted by Fender2112
After seeing the G5 next to that G4, I checked the dimentions and the G5 is not going to fit under my desk, or on top, or under. I may have to put it in the garage. :)

Anyone know if the handles are removable?. The G5 measures 20.1" and I only have 18.75" under my desk. I didn't realize it was so big. I could set it off to the side but the cabels will most likely be about 2" too short. :(
Click to expand...

Looks like it's time to get a new desk;)
 
Re: Re: That's A Big Box !!

Originally posted by tazznb
Looks like it's time to get a new desk;)
Click to expand...

Yep, they used to call IBM, the "big iron", I guess since Apple joined forces with them they are now the "big aluminium". :rolleyes:

Actually, I suspect that the enclosure is nice and big so that everything will still fit when the Rev.C model comes out with quad processors, 32GB of ram and 47 fans!
 
just saw this, i think bench marks are a good way to get a rough idea on performance from a machine. just in case anyone may be interested a single 1.4 g4 in a quicksilver gave me a xbench of 114. that doesnt compare that bad with the new 1.6 which had a score of 128.
 
Originally posted by yoshi1013
I'm looking forward to the speed because of video applications. I'm sick and tired of waiting until I won't be using my computer just to encode maybe five minutes of video which will take around an hour or so also depending on if I use 2-pass VBR encoding.
Click to expand...

While this is true (I have a pet project and it around 20 hours to encode 2 hours of video at the 1-pass VBR MPEG-2 setting in FCP4's Compressor on my PowerBook 667) I've noticed that Compressor plays very well with OS X's multitasking. The UI remains quite responsive and as long as I'm not doing anything else *too* processor intensive (I think I could play music, but I wouldn't) I can get other work done. I can't wait to see what the 1.6 GHz G5 can do on this score, considering that my 667MHz G4 does pretty well.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: a Photoshop test is what I need....

Originally posted by holmesf
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.
Click to expand...

I know..... It sounds wierd

But it's because my school is retarded.

And yeah, I want to learn cocoa too. And other languages too. By the end of senior year I want to be able to make a decent program for either mac or PC, doing something that everyone needs.

scem0
 
Re: Well...

Originally posted by The Ancients
Reliability, that's why!

At least the Fiesta would get you there, AND back...
Click to expand...

Hey, the Lotus is PERFECLY reliable! Just buy some antifreeze and oil at the grocery store for the trip back.
 
Originally posted by sparkplug
Yes I did notice this, how exactly is this relevant? I allso noticed that they did not test a dual athlon, opteron or xeon machine, just a single g4, single g5 and single p4, does this somehow invalidate the results? no.
Click to expand...

But why did you ignore the Altivec version? It's far, far faster than the 2.66GHz P4 with or without SSE2.

Mike.
 
Originally posted by Longey Nowze
that's kinda my point, the G5 is a Pro machine, I think it will be used by professionals more than consumers, and some car programmes have lap times rather than from the 0-100 like BBC's Top Gear which gives you a better way to compare cars, so PS FCP and Maya and the like should be better tests to run compiling software code is too, but isn't that what some benchmarks do?
Click to expand...

I disagree. Benchmarks suck, because they can never really represent real-world hi-power usage. At best benchmarks can give a very vague indication of relative performance. And that only if they are app benchmarks--those silly CPU exercising tests are less than useless for users.

In the real world, when you are doing a photoshop filter and a 3D render and a video stream encoding and a DVD burn and surfing the web at the same time, then I think the 1.6 G5 will annihilate the Dual 1.42.
 
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
just in case anyone may be interested a single 1.4 g4 in a quicksilver gave me a xbench of 114. that doesnt compare that bad with the new 1.6 which had a score of 128.
Click to expand...

Yah, but shouldn't the G5 be ALOT faster than a G4. The difference between the two scores seems to be soley dependant on faster clock speeds, not on any new architecture. I would have expected all the new stuff with the G5 to at least make it a ton faster than the G4 but I guess it doesn't. Which basically means that the top-end G4 whoops up on a G5 1.6Ghz. It also means that the G5 really isn't al that revolutonary if all it can do is simply outperform a G4 by the sole virtue of having faster clock speeds. That's like the difference between a G3 and G4 (which wasn't much of a difference unless you were running altivec enabled apps). I guess I'm just really disappointed with these results, and everybody here is trying to make up some poor excuses on "optimization", when in fact the G5 is not the wonder chip that we dreamed it would be. When I sit people down and show them that Photoshop doesn't run that much faster and then tell them some dumb "unoptimized" excuse, guess what, they won't listen-they could come up with just as many excuses themselves on the P4 performance tests if the G5 were to beat it. So forget it. Seems like the G5 sucks for now. I'm kinda scared to benchmark it against our dual 3.0 Xeon, cause it might get it's butt kicked, and I don't want to be the fool to have to say "unoptimized apps". Ha!!!
 
ummmm...no...that 1.6Gz G5 won't out power the Dual 1.42 on 3D Rendering...

...with the exceedingly pathetic nVidia FX5200 that the 1.6 ships with (and the Dual 1.42's Stock ATi 9700 Pro) people seem to forget the GPU on the graphics card is a big factor in rendering performance...

...not to mention Adobe Pornoshop is SMP Aware...Altivec Enhanced...NOT optimised for the G5's 64bit processor...
 
Originally posted by BrandonRP0123

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.
Click to expand...


dude, you just seriously sounded like a pr guy for apple... maybe you could see if they need someone over there :eek:)

seriosly, that got me all tingly...

matt
 
Originally posted by John Q Public
not to mention Adobe Pornoshop is SMP Aware...Altivec Enhanced...NOT optimised for the G5's 64bit processor...
Click to expand...

It is as of yesterday.
I'm not expecting much from it's optimization though. Seems as though all the naysayers where right when they were making fun of me saying that Apple's lying, and like a fool I was coming up with all these explanations on why the tests are they way they are, and blah blah this and that. I'm still getting a dual G5, but lets just say I'm really disappointed.
 
All Mac apps benefit from dual CPUs

For te record, there are NO Mac apps that don't benefit to SOME degree from dual CPUs.

Mac OS X will, at the very least, devote one CPU to the current app, letting the OS and other apps run on the second CPU. So your single-CPU app has the WHOLE CPU to itself, and thus will run faster.

Other apps will of course take FULL advantage of duals.

And in defense of VPC: the benefit of it over a real PC is convenience. (And also price, now that it's bundled with Office Pro.) You can share yuur screen between Mac and Windows and imply drag and drop. You can access Windows without any boot time with one click. And you don't need to find space for a second pile of hardware. And if you are a portable user, carrying two laptops is no solution! VPC to the rescue.

I got a PC, then I got VPC... I use VPC for convenience, and let the real one collect dust.

Plus, the cheapest PCs tend to be very unreliable. If your cheap PC dies and leaves you with nothing, you haven't saved.

(PS It looks from MS's stated requirements that VPC will ONLY run on a G3 or G4 at the moment. Hopefully a solution will come from MS--or Real PC--soon.)
 
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