So the standing question is do the advantages of the current dual 1.25 mhz G4 processor out weigh the 1.6 G5 single processor? I spoke with an Apple rep the other day and she said that the only time there is an advantage to the dual is when you are multitasking. If you don't run a lot of apps at once, it's not worth it and that even the single 1.25 would be perfectly suitable.
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
So the standing question is do the advantages of the current dual 1.25 mhz G4 processor out weigh the 1.6 G5 single processor? I spoke with an Apple rep the other day and she said that the only time there is an advantage to the dual is when you are multitasking. If you don't run a lot of apps at once, it's not worth it and that even the single 1.25 would be perfectly suitable.
I have to say that the high end upgrades for older machines are a very good alternative's for the g5. Yes i will be getting a g5 but it may be a year or 2? Heck max out that ram, video card, cpu upgrade you still save a grand. Now a year from now apps will be coming out that know how to use that g5 then its abilities will be shown but for now it is not being used to its most, sort of like Mac games that dont know what altivec is. Anyways some great posts!
Basically it means that your computer will actually get faster as it ages (though of course it will still be slower than the new machines that replace it), much like OS X 10.2 is faster than OS X 10.0 (if you can remember that) on the same hardware.
But it is important to keep in mind that even on most non-recompiled apps, the G5 will still outperform the current high end G4's, due to its higher clock speed, faster memory bus, and superior architecture (the exception would be apps that make heavy use of both G4's and are not memory bound...then a Dual 1.42 will outperform a Single 1.6). And it's not like the current G4's are slow, so I wouldn't worry about it. Furthermore, the most processor intensive apps (e.g. Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, Logic, Lightwave, etc.), which are the ones where you will really need all the speed you can get, are the ones that are most likely to be recompiled first.
I can relate my desk area is just big enough for the quicksilver with 1/2 inch to spare ,a g5 would need a new desk or a hacksaw. Did they need to make it so big? a 1.6 & 1.8 have a lot of wasted space.
Looks Good To Me
Validity of benchmarking in general put aside, I'm actually very happy with these numbers, so long as you take into account the large list of caveats. I'm repeating what others have said in different words, but:
-The G5 is architecturally very different from the G4; as big a jump in the Mac since at least the G3 vs. 604e. This means that without performance tuning (at least a recompile), you have no idea of what it's capable of, only how it does with code tuned for an entirely different processor.
-XBench is, I think, at least somewhat G4 optimized; at the very least, it's completely un-G5 optimized.
-Benchmarks only offer the most general idea of performance; actual app performance is what really counts.
So basically, what we can take away from numbers like these is, in very rough terms, how the G5 is going to compete with a G4 when running code that's optimized for the G4 (old, non-updated programs). Meaningful, but hardly the G5's strength.
And taking that into account, I read three things from the benchmarks:
1) The G5, at worst, is running at about the same speed as a comperably clocked G4 if you extrapolate.
2) In the only "real world" test, Cinebench, the G5 is around 40% faster, per clock, than the G4.
3) In some tests, the G5 runs circles around a dual CPU G4 at only slightly lower clock speed.
What this means is that, in the real world, the absolute worst you're going to get out of your new G5 is the same performance as a similarly clocked G4. That means that, at the very least, a 40% speed increase if you go dual 2Ghz. Nothing to sneeze at.
In some cases--still running unoptimized code--the low-end G5 is significantly faster than the top-of-the-line G4. Though degree of multiprocessing aware-ness obviously makes a big difference, that points to a huge advantage for the G5.
On top of all that, most people in the know seem to think that G5 optimization can at least double speed vs a G4 optimized program. That points to a speed jump of aproximately 300% between the two generations of Macs. That makes me happy.
There, I'm done.
Validity of benchmarking in general put aside, I'm actually very happy with these numbers, so long as you take into account the large list of caveats. I'm repeating what others have said in different words, but:
-The G5 is architecturally very different from the G4; as big a jump in the Mac since at least the G3 vs. 604e. This means that without performance tuning (at least a recompile), you have no idea of what it's capable of, only how it does with code tuned for an entirely different processor.
-XBench is, I think, at least somewhat G4 optimized; at the very least, it's completely un-G5 optimized.
-Benchmarks only offer the most general idea of performance; actual app performance is what really counts.
So basically, what we can take away from numbers like these is, in very rough terms, how the G5 is going to compete with a G4 when running code that's optimized for the G4 (old, non-updated programs). Meaningful, but hardly the G5's strength.
And taking that into account, I read three things from the benchmarks:
1) The G5, at worst, is running at about the same speed as a comperably clocked G4 if you extrapolate.
2) In the only "real world" test, Cinebench, the G5 is around 40% faster, per clock, than the G4.
3) In some tests, the G5 runs circles around a dual CPU G4 at only slightly lower clock speed.
What this means is that, in the real world, the absolute worst you're going to get out of your new G5 is the same performance as a similarly clocked G4. That means that, at the very least, a 40% speed increase if you go dual 2Ghz. Nothing to sneeze at.
In some cases--still running unoptimized code--the low-end G5 is significantly faster than the top-of-the-line G4. Though degree of multiprocessing aware-ness obviously makes a big difference, that points to a huge advantage for the G5.
On top of all that, most people in the know seem to think that G5 optimization can at least double speed vs a G4 optimized program. That points to a speed jump of aproximately 300% between the two generations of Macs. That makes me happy.
There, I'm done.
Re: Looks Good To Me
That means being kicked by the Pentium/Athlon camp
That means getting performance in the midrange of the current x86 lineup. Still not that great if you ask me.
I hope this is were most apps perform at, cause that's going to place the G5 in the world-class performance category. 300% increase is good, but from what we've seen so far, it just ain't there yet. At least Photshop is now optimized, and I'm sure Final Cut is. Not sure about After Effects, but hopefully that is too. With Maya and a couple other apps optimized, that would be sufficient for us in the content-creation market. But I really, really wanted this to be the one time where we could really stomp all over x86 without any questions or caveats. At this point, it doesn't seem as though it's looking like that will happen. Can't wait to see the dual vs. dual that Charlie White will run once the dual 2Ghz comes out. And it's those kind of benchmarks that people will notice. If the G5 performs like crap on that, then I don't know what to say, cause the excuse-making at that point in time ain't gonna work.
That means being kicked by the Pentium/Athlon camp
That means getting performance in the midrange of the current x86 lineup. Still not that great if you ask me.
I hope this is were most apps perform at, cause that's going to place the G5 in the world-class performance category. 300% increase is good, but from what we've seen so far, it just ain't there yet. At least Photshop is now optimized, and I'm sure Final Cut is. Not sure about After Effects, but hopefully that is too. With Maya and a couple other apps optimized, that would be sufficient for us in the content-creation market. But I really, really wanted this to be the one time where we could really stomp all over x86 without any questions or caveats. At this point, it doesn't seem as though it's looking like that will happen. Can't wait to see the dual vs. dual that Charlie White will run once the dual 2Ghz comes out. And it's those kind of benchmarks that people will notice. If the G5 performs like crap on that, then I don't know what to say, cause the excuse-making at that point in time ain't gonna work.
Photoshop, FCP, optimized
Actually, Photoshop is not *optimized* in the truest sense of the word. Just a plug in can't do that. It now *supports* the hardware, and thus won't treat the hardware like it would a G4.
Big difference.
Final Cut Pro optimized for G5? No. Not yet.
The FCP box would bear a silvery "sticker" that says Optimized for G5".
In fact, I bet they don't optimize it for G5 until PowerBooks and iMacs have gone G5.
Jaedreth
Actually, Photoshop is not *optimized* in the truest sense of the word. Just a plug in can't do that. It now *supports* the hardware, and thus won't treat the hardware like it would a G4.
Big difference.
Final Cut Pro optimized for G5? No. Not yet.
The FCP box would bear a silvery "sticker" that says Optimized for G5".
In fact, I bet they don't optimize it for G5 until PowerBooks and iMacs have gone G5.
Jaedreth
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nasa bench 2ghz Dual
Untrue (even given that you mean clock speed, as opposed to actual speed).
Hmmm...well, either you recall incorrectly, or you saw a incorrect roadmap. Currently the G5 is running at 2 Ghz and the P4 is running at 3.2 Ghz, so there is a 60% clock speed advantage for Intel. Apple/IBM have committed to increasing clock speed to 3 Ghz within one year, which presumably means no later than Q3 2004. Intel is not committing to anything, but their official roadmap has the Pentium 4/5 at "3.4 Ghz or greater" through June 2004 (Q2 2004) (http://www.intel.com/products/roadmap/index.htm?iid=ipp_browse+process_roadmap&). There is some upside potential in the "or greater" part (though definitely not 1 Ghz worth of upside potential!), but the recently confirmed power dissipation problems of this processor are likely to limit the clock speed increases. Certainly 3.4 Ghz is the fastest projected speed through Q1 2004 (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11092), so at best we are likely to see is 3.6 Ghz in Q2 and 3.8 Ghz in Q3. The highest possible projection I have seen for Q3 2004 (from before the power dissipation problems were apparent) is 4 Ghz - that is unlikely to be attained (http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2003/0812/kaigai01l.gif).
So the bottom line is that in one year the G5 should be at 3 Ghz, whereas Intel should be between 3.6 to 3.8 Ghz, with 4 Ghz at the upper end of possibilities (but increasingly unlikely). So Intel's clock speed advantage will be reduced to between 20 to 33 percent (as opposed to 60 percent right now) - not bad! And of course the G5 will be getting much more done per clock cycle, so in real world performance it should have a definite advantage.
Untrue (even given that you mean clock speed, as opposed to actual speed).
Hmmm...well, either you recall incorrectly, or you saw a incorrect roadmap. Currently the G5 is running at 2 Ghz and the P4 is running at 3.2 Ghz, so there is a 60% clock speed advantage for Intel. Apple/IBM have committed to increasing clock speed to 3 Ghz within one year, which presumably means no later than Q3 2004. Intel is not committing to anything, but their official roadmap has the Pentium 4/5 at "3.4 Ghz or greater" through June 2004 (Q2 2004) (http://www.intel.com/products/roadmap/index.htm?iid=ipp_browse+process_roadmap&). There is some upside potential in the "or greater" part (though definitely not 1 Ghz worth of upside potential!), but the recently confirmed power dissipation problems of this processor are likely to limit the clock speed increases. Certainly 3.4 Ghz is the fastest projected speed through Q1 2004 (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11092), so at best we are likely to see is 3.6 Ghz in Q2 and 3.8 Ghz in Q3. The highest possible projection I have seen for Q3 2004 (from before the power dissipation problems were apparent) is 4 Ghz - that is unlikely to be attained (http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2003/0812/kaigai01l.gif).
So the bottom line is that in one year the G5 should be at 3 Ghz, whereas Intel should be between 3.6 to 3.8 Ghz, with 4 Ghz at the upper end of possibilities (but increasingly unlikely). So Intel's clock speed advantage will be reduced to between 20 to 33 percent (as opposed to 60 percent right now) - not bad! And of course the G5 will be getting much more done per clock cycle, so in real world performance it should have a definite advantage.
Acutally, yes. P3's were faster at many things than P4's were untill P4 optimized code started showing up.
You've got to realize that while the G5 may run any PPC binaries, it will not be able to shine unless those bits are arranged in a way that takes advantage of the G5. It's like trying to run a top fuel drag car on low octane gasoline - it might run but you're not going to win any races with it!
So yes, early adopters of G5 machines will have to live with relatively mediorcre performance until their software is recompiled for the G5; just like the first Power Mac users did on the 601, just like G4 users did before Alti-Vec app's came out and just like Windows users did on the P4.
(Disclaimer: Intel did have some design issues in the early P4's which contributed to it being slower than P3's at lower clock frequencies - but the main problem was still that existing code was not taking advantage of P4 technologies like NetBurst and whatnot - it still is a problem with the new HyperThreading P4's as app's are slowing catching up to use it)
...and would partially explain why Apple dropped the Dual 1.42 FW800 from the line...opting for the original MDD (with only FW400) so as not to outperform and of the G5's and steal their thunder for less money...
Still pretty amazed at the size difference, the g5 is gigantic in that photo compared to the mdd.
Regarding the photo of the G5 interior:
Comparing the photo of an actual G5 to the one on the Apple web site, I see that the shipping units have the cool pink and blue wavy line inserts removed.
Comparing the photo of an actual G5 to the one on the Apple web site, I see that the shipping units have the cool pink and blue wavy line inserts removed.
yup...and with all that extra size...half the expandability...since SATA drives aren't significantly faster than the ATA100 on current G4's...and you can only have 2 HDDs...and one optical drive...
in a sense...Apple is screwing people into buying a G5 though...if want a new Mac and want FireWire800...you'll have to buy a G5 (seeing that they dropped the FW800 MDD's and opted to sell last-year's-model as the "New" G4)...
...and if you look at the Apple Store site...you have to look WAY down to the bottom...below the iPod....below the "Apple Software" to even find it on the page...
Apple would rather you buy an iMac or eMac than a G4 Tower...personally I'd have rather seen them completely drop the G4 Tower than treat it as the "Red-Headed Step-Child" the marketing people have done...
After my B&W G3 finally died last month...I did the research...read the articles...crunched the numbers...weighed how much I hate the design of the G5...looked at expandability...and finally thought about what goodies I could buy with how much I saved in buying one of the last FW800's...the decision was natural and easy...
...screw what Apple wants me to do...regardless of the opinions...the G4 is in many ways (from my POV) an excellent machine...and in quite a few ways superior to the way Apple now wants me to use my computer...
I've built many PC's (from 386's to a 3.0 Gz Barton Cored Athlon) over the years (rather than buy prebuilt)...for the same reasons I WON'T buy a G5...to an extent Apple already decides for you what you can or can't do with your shiny new toy...I can live with that...but to purposely create a machine that limits your choices as much as the G5 does...PCI-X doesn't have industry wide support yet...SATA is a nice technology but doesn't live up to it's promises...and limiting expansion inside the case...my G3 had a ComboDrive and 7 HDD's (smallest being 40GB 2:ATA33 1:Slave on the CD Chain...4 on a Sonnet TempoTrio)...when I moved to G4 I gave up 3 drives (less expandability...but I was still able to use the old ATA100 drives from the G3)
I guess for me...not going to the G5 meant not giving up being able to make MY machine MY machine...that and being able to afford extra goodies (like GeForce4 Ti...and 23" Cinema HD Display)
In a non-typically long winded fashion...I'm saying the choice is yours...personal preference is more a factor than electronic d*** measuring contests...I switched fully (ok...my laptop is still Windoze...can't be perfect...seeing that I make my living coding for companies using Micro$haft OS's) to Mac because I wanted to...I've always had one around (much to my SO's displeasure...although she likes having a Pentium-Rated 3Gz Athlon on her desk to play with now)...I like my Mac...and I don't care who knows it or what they thnk (especially old friends who now call me a traitor)
Johnq i hear you, the g5 is and will be a excellent machine but it does have a lame fx5200 and you have to start over with memory. I to have reached the conclusion that my quicksilver wasnt called that for nothing so when and if i max the machine out ill know. ati 9800 is sounding so sweet,so is another 512 of memory. maybe a superdrive?? or a ati9800 all in wonder for mac if ATI ever gets off there ---.
i think the reason for the L3 cache in 7440 g4 and above is because moto could not deliver the faster L2 cache in any size larger then 256k which is 400% smaller then the 1MB L2 cache in the previous g4s' 7400/7410
a test at insidemacgames between an agp powermac g4 with the standard 500 g4 1MBL2 cache and the same machine at 800 with a 256k L2 cache showed the 500 faster due to the larger L2 cache and smaller pipeline 4vs7
however with an 800 processor with an added 1MB L3 cache in addition to the 256k L3 the 800 was then slightly faster then the 500.
the original G4 was one of the fastest processors apple ever had based on performance per clock cycle, however it could not scale, because of a small 4 pipeline stages and large L2 cache.
the g5 vs g4 debate is similar, what is it 29 pipeline stages to 7, L2 and L3 cache to L2 alone, simply put the g4 is a more efficient cheap in a few areas with a number of major flaw no bandwidth for fsb, memory, and just about everything else, limited to 256k L2 cache which made L3 necessary, extremely slow scaling in clock speed, or should i just say moto has not got a clue.
i dont know this to be true but is the g4 L2 cacheing more advanced then the G5 8way as opposed to 4 way and its altivec units are superior also supposedly.
however that wont do any good stuck at 1.4 and 167 fsb
a test at insidemacgames between an agp powermac g4 with the standard 500 g4 1MBL2 cache and the same machine at 800 with a 256k L2 cache showed the 500 faster due to the larger L2 cache and smaller pipeline 4vs7
however with an 800 processor with an added 1MB L3 cache in addition to the 256k L3 the 800 was then slightly faster then the 500.
the original G4 was one of the fastest processors apple ever had based on performance per clock cycle, however it could not scale, because of a small 4 pipeline stages and large L2 cache.
the g5 vs g4 debate is similar, what is it 29 pipeline stages to 7, L2 and L3 cache to L2 alone, simply put the g4 is a more efficient cheap in a few areas with a number of major flaw no bandwidth for fsb, memory, and just about everything else, limited to 256k L2 cache which made L3 necessary, extremely slow scaling in clock speed, or should i just say moto has not got a clue.
i dont know this to be true but is the g4 L2 cacheing more advanced then the G5 8way as opposed to 4 way and its altivec units are superior also supposedly.
however that wont do any good stuck at 1.4 and 167 fsb
Many excellent points. I have looked high and low both locally and on line to try and find a firewire 800 G4 that might fit the bill for myself, but unfortunately, these are few and far between. I need one with the superdrive as well which really limits your choices....there are very few superdrive model G4's left at any resellers, period. So it's either order "last years model" from Apple or go with the G5 and I have a feeling I will be choosing the G5 (and I personally prefer the actual design of the G4 as well). As much as I don't like feeling like I am being coerced into this decision by Apple's marketing tactics, I have to give them credit...Steve isn't stupid.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nasa bench 2ghz Dual
First, Intel official roadmaps are historically quite conservative more than a month out. They are for planning more than six months out. For a year out, you need to tap into more "dubious" sources ...
Second, yes that last was where I got the "4.8 IIRC" figure ("4.4 GHz" was the figure that had stuck in my mind, Tejas debut projected, which had morphed with "3.8 GHz", Prescott, mid Q1 2004).
What power dissipation problems are you talking about? Haven't heard of anything major or unexpected.
First, Intel official roadmaps are historically quite conservative more than a month out. They are for planning more than six months out. For a year out, you need to tap into more "dubious" sources ...
Second, yes that last was where I got the "4.8 IIRC" figure ("4.4 GHz" was the figure that had stuck in my mind, Tejas debut projected, which had morphed with "3.8 GHz", Prescott, mid Q1 2004).
What power dissipation problems are you talking about? Haven't heard of anything major or unexpected.
Re: Big machine...
Funny, I have that particular Gateway (1.5GHz P4 from a few years back) beast sitting in my office right here next to a 733MHz G4 and ... well, it looks pretty much th size relative to the old G4 as the G5 does. On the other hand, newer Gateways are a good 2" shorter than the old ones ...
That PC photo may have been blown up slightly, but definitely not a huge amount.
Funny, I have that particular Gateway (1.5GHz P4 from a few years back) beast sitting in my office right here next to a 733MHz G4 and ... well, it looks pretty much th size relative to the old G4 as the G5 does. On the other hand, newer Gateways are a good 2" shorter than the old ones ...
That PC photo may have been blown up slightly, but definitely not a huge amount.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nasa bench 2ghz Dual
They first surfaced a month or two ago, but they were only recently confirmed by internal Intel docs. See http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11092
Basically, Prescott is dissipating 103 watts at 3.4 Ghz. Now, it is not big news that a processor is dissipating around 100 watts - I believe that some P4s and Athlons have neared 100 watts, and the Opteron may actually be over 100 watts. The big news is that it is dissipating 103 watts on the *new* 90 nm process, i.e. it is doing so at the lowest clock speeds they had planned for that process!! If it were burning 103 watts on the 130 nm process, that wouldn't be such a big deal, because you would expect the power consumption to fall down to more reasonable levels when they move to the cooler 90 nm process, allowing for further frequency scaling. But the fact that it's at 103 watts at the *beginning* of its life cycle on this process, rather than at the end, is potentially a much bigger problem. Needless to say, Intel is going to have to make some revisions if they want to be able to significantly scale the clock speeds on this process. Otherwise the power consumption is going to get out of control.
And needless to say, systems built around this chip are not going to be quiet. ;-)
They first surfaced a month or two ago, but they were only recently confirmed by internal Intel docs. See http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11092
Basically, Prescott is dissipating 103 watts at 3.4 Ghz. Now, it is not big news that a processor is dissipating around 100 watts - I believe that some P4s and Athlons have neared 100 watts, and the Opteron may actually be over 100 watts. The big news is that it is dissipating 103 watts on the *new* 90 nm process, i.e. it is doing so at the lowest clock speeds they had planned for that process!! If it were burning 103 watts on the 130 nm process, that wouldn't be such a big deal, because you would expect the power consumption to fall down to more reasonable levels when they move to the cooler 90 nm process, allowing for further frequency scaling. But the fact that it's at 103 watts at the *beginning* of its life cycle on this process, rather than at the end, is potentially a much bigger problem. Needless to say, Intel is going to have to make some revisions if they want to be able to significantly scale the clock speeds on this process. Otherwise the power consumption is going to get out of control.
And needless to say, systems built around this chip are not going to be quiet. ;-)