Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
54,617
16,756
With Dual 2.0GHz PowerMacs finally trickling to end users, one person posted PS7Bench Benchmarks from their brand-new PowerMac Dual 2.0GHz Mac with 1GB RAM.

The new results have been added to the previous PS7Bench Benchmark chart which include previous results from the PowerMac G5 1.6GHz as well as various PC configurations.

PC result pulled from this Acehardware article. PowerMac G5 1.6GHz results from this previous MacNN thread.

Best results are in red. The PowerMac G5 Dual 2.0GHz results are the fastest in 15/21 of the tests run. A normalized score was calculated and listed in comparison to varous other systems in this ArsTechnica thread. (Normalized Score?)

The normalized score for the PowerMac G5 2.0GHz comes to 547, which tops out the other configurations in the comparison list.
 

Tiauguinho

macrumors 6502a
Mar 5, 2002
647
0
The Netherlands
The Fastest Computer in the world is true! :) We finnaly have our deserved crown for owning them all! Hurray for the G5!

Code:
2x 2000 G5 OSX 10.2.7 (G5 plugin) 547 (energy settings highest perf)
2x 3060 Xeon (OC'd 2400)          488
2x 2930 Xeon (OC'd 2400)          471
   3200 P4 (800MHz)               427
   3000 P4 (800MHz)               405
   3495 P4 (OC'd 3.06)            386
   3060 P4 XP Pro (533 FSB)       358 HT
2x 2200 Xeon PC 800 RDRAM CPQ Evo 357 HT
2x 1500 G4 (OC'd 1420)            348
2x 1333 G4 DDR OS9.2 (oc'd 1.25)  346
   1800 G5 OSX 10.2.7 (G5 plugin) 344 (energy settings highest perf)
2x 1420 G4 OSX 10.2.4             338
2x 2400+Athlon MP                 338
2x 1250 G4 OS 9.2.2j              337
   3200+Athlon XP                 332
   1800 Opteron(dual-chnlDDR 333) 332
2x 1333 G4 DDR OSX10.2.2(oc 1.25) 326
   1800 OPteron(singl-chnlDDR333) 320
   3000+Athlon XP                 318
2x 1250 G4 OSX 10.2.5             318
2x 1250 G4 DDR OSX 10.2.1         316
2x 1800 Athlon MP                 312
   2800+Athlon XP Barton          298
2x 2000 P4 Xeon                   286
2x 1200 G4Powerlogix(867MHzG4/QS) 285 upgraded
2x 1533 Athlon MP                 285
2x 1533 Athlon MP                 283
   2530 P4 mobile (OC'd 1400)     282
   2700 P4B (OC 2400, 600 MHz FSB)280 
2x 1466 Athlon XP                 279
   1600 G5 OSX 10.2.7w/G5 Plugin  276 *MacNNscores
   2666 P4 (DDR 333)              269
2x 1000 G4 DDR 10.2               267
   2400+Athlon XP                 262
2x 1000 G4 OS9                    260
2x 1000 G4 OSX 10.1.5             254
   2400+Athlon                    252
   2400 P4B (800MHz)              251
   2400b (sis 648 DDR400)         251
   1600 Centrino IBM T40          250
   2400 P4 (533MHz bus)           249
   2400 P4 B                      241
   2340 P4 (overclock)            239
   1600 Centrino Dell D800        236 
   2400 P4                        234
   1800+Athlon XP (1533 MHz)      226
   1577 oc'd Athlon XP (Lestat)   221
2x 1000 G4 OSX 10.2.2 (upgraded)  218 ?!(dual 533 logic board)
   1548 Athlon XP                 214
   1670 Athlon XP (2000+)         213 
   1667 Athlon XP                 211
   1400 Athlon XP 1600+ xp pro    200 
1x 1533 Athlon MP                 197
   1300 Centrino Sony VAIO Z1A    196
   1000 G4 17" Powrbk OSX 10.2.6  196 
   2000 P4 Xeon                   194 
   1400 Athlon XP 1600+'98SE      191
   1000 G4 OSX TiPbk 10.2.2       185
2x  533 G4 OSX 10.1.5             175
2x  533 G4 OS 9.2.2               174
   1800 P4                        173
   1200 AthlonMP                  168
   1508 Celeron (overclock)       167
   1400 PIII Tualatin             160 **?
2x  550 G4 OSX 10.2.3 (OC Cube)   160 **?
2x  500 G4 OSX                    152 
2x  450 G4 OS9                    151 
   1333 Athlon TBird              147 
2x  450 G4 OSX 10.1.5             143 
    800 G4 Pbook OSX  1MB L3      135 
    733 G4 (miro7)                134 
    667 G4 PBk OS9 noL3           127
    667 G4 PBk OSX 10.2.3 no L3   125
    466 G4 OS9                    123 
    667 G4 OSX TiPBk 10.1.5 noL3  121
    866 PIII                      114 
    466 G4 OSX 133 MHz bus        112
    550 G4 Powrbk OS9*            104 
    500 G4 Pbook (OC'd 400)       103
1x  450 G4 OSX 100 MHz bus        101
   1000 Athlon TBird (PS6.01)     100
    550 G4 Powrbk OSX*             95
    933 Transmeta Crusoe Sony      78 
    700 G3 iBook                   74
    600 G3 iBook OS 9.2.2j         70
    233 PII                        30
 

mvc

macrumors 6502a
Jul 11, 2003
760
0
Outer-Roa
Hmm, shes a quick little devil

Yep, it would be difficult even for a rapid PC zealot to deny that the dual 2 GHz G5 is among the fastest of the available machines, but I'm sure we will shortly hear from one trying :D
 

TMay

macrumors 68000
Dec 24, 2001
1,520
1
Carson City, NV
not to complain, but...

The results would seem to vindicate the G5 architecture, and I would expect better results in the future as optimization continues through Photoshop 8. Still, the P4 3200 800 Mhz bus version did quite well for a single processor.

Interesting that the 1800 dual channel DDR333 Opteron was just a tad slower than an equivalent G5. I would like to see the faster bus versions of the Opteron to see how they hold up (I consider the Opteron the natural rival to the 970, not Pentium or Xeon).

That said, what's with the pathetic results from the dual Xeon's? Those babies should be put down.
 

ffakr

macrumors 6502a
Jul 2, 2002
617
0
Chicago
just the start

I hope this quells some of the 'Steve Jobs is a liar' crap I've been seeing around the net... even on these and other Mac boards.

It's pretty sad when people are so quick to ignore the architecture... to assume that when early benchmarks on unoptimized code, or against fudged PC scores don't show vast 970 superiority.... to assume that the new machine is crap and that Apple is lying about performance figures that will be thoroughly tested asap.

Maybe this is one of the first signs that the machines are indeed fast, very fast. It is, afterall, a dual 2GHz machine on 1GHz frontside buses, with a max theoretical IPC of 8 (wow).

I think even the Mac bashers will eventually just shut up when more benchmarks are run. PS 7 is only slightly optimised for the G5. There is a lot of Altivec code in PShop that is optimised for the G4... code that will run like crap on the G5. Just wait till Photoshop 8 running on Panther.

:)

The real question will be Athlon64fx and Prescott.
Athlon64 is a hot chip and it will likely pass the 970 in clock at first. The 970 can have more in flight instructions though, and a higher IPC, and better SIMD performance.
Prescott is a bigger danger though. It's still a 'netburst' P4 though there are apparently significant updates to the core. L2 us supposedly going up to 2MB, though heat output will be over 100watts to get all that. It will be a fast processor though... I think we'll need a speed bump in the G5s to fend off the Prescott on code that doesn't make extensive use of SMP.


ffakr... still waiting on his budget for the new Mac.
 

simX

macrumors 6502a
May 28, 2002
763
3
Bay Area, CA
OK, hands up: who *REALLY* thought that the performance of a dual 2 GHz G5 was going to be any less spectacular and wouldn't blow away the competition?

*truthfully keeps hand down* ;)
 

sososowhat

macrumors 6502
Feb 20, 2003
287
42
Palo Alto, CA
So where can I find that benchmark to try it myself?

I've got my shiny new 1.8 w/ 2.5G RAM & I'd like to run the benchmark on my machine. Is it available for download?

Apologies if I'm missing something obvious - just a little excited perhaps :)
 

mvc

macrumors 6502a
Jul 11, 2003
760
0
Outer-Roa
Originally posted by simX
OK, hands up: who *REALLY* thought that the performance of a dual 2 GHz G5 was going to be any less spectacular and wouldn't blow away the competition?

*truthfully keeps hand down* ;)

Well, I'm a true mac zealot, but I don't expect we will be faster in everyway and every test. We have always done well in Photoshop tests.

It's inconceiveable that, over time, the mainstream PCs will not naturally be superior in speed that a niche player like the Mac - this current good result is really a sweet spot due to a good new architecture competing against either old / inefficient / overstretched / poorly implemented or undeveloped ones.

Logically, it cannot stay this way when so much more money overall is being poured into the competitions R&D, no matter how clever IBM's engineers are. Only if we somehow gain a more major marketshare (say over 10%), will there be any real hope of sustaining this sort of result.

Ask yourself, why did Motorola go from being a successful fast chip maker to a laggard? (apart from general incompetence)?

Because they don't care about the Powerpc as a standalone Computer platform, because it doesn't make enough money. IBM has a more vested interest with their servers using related Power4 architecture, but there are no guarantees they will advance the consumer spinoff 970-9X0 chips as fast.

That said, Hooray for the little guy!
 

nospleen

macrumors 68020
Dec 8, 2002
2,478
980
Texas
Re: So where can I find that benchmark to try it myself?

Originally posted by sososowhat
I've got my shiny new 1.8 w/ 2.5G RAM & I'd like to run the benchmark on my machine. Is it available for download?

Apologies if I'm missing something obvious - just a little excited perhaps :)

Someone give this man a link. Have you xbenched yet? My stock 1.8 was 154, I would like to see what the ram does to the score.
 

e-coli

macrumors 68000
Jul 27, 2002
1,869
845
And it's going to be at 3GHz by the end of next year.

How great for Apple. They really pulled a rabbit out of their hat with the G5.
 

sososowhat

macrumors 6502
Feb 20, 2003
287
42
Palo Alto, CA
Re: Re: So where can I find that benchmark to try it myself?

Originally posted by nospleen
Someone give this man a link. Have you xbenched yet? My stock 1.8 was 154, I would like to see what the ram does to the score.

Thanks & thank you Arn. I'll try to find xbench. I guess I should have realized that PSBench would work better if I had Photoshop, which I don't :mad: .

I will post xbench, assuming I've got all the right s/w, but might not get to it till later tonight though - got to step out for a bit.
 

Macco

macrumors regular
Jun 15, 2003
164
0
Originally posted by Tiauguinho

Code:
2x 2000 G5 OSX 10.2.7 (G5 plugin) 547 (energy settings highest perf)

<...snip...>

    700 G3 iBook                   74
    600 G3 iBook OS 9.2.2j         70
    233 PII                        30

Wow I almost feel sorry for that iBook.
 

mvc

macrumors 6502a
Jul 11, 2003
760
0
Outer-Roa
Upgrade fever begins to hit home…

Originally posted by Macco
Wow I almost feel sorry for that iBook.

Yeah, I have an 800MHz, the G5 would eat it for breakfast. And as for my Dual 450 G4 (My main work machine - pity me!)

Edit -found what i wanted by reading the whole list (duh)
 

Raiden

macrumors regular
Jun 14, 2002
147
0
hey guys lay off the 600 ibook! :) Its not as bad as the pitiful benchmark scores say. I mean the one im on right now runs jag great.

and yeah, those dual G5 scores are insane!! w00t for apple!
 

Photorun

macrumors 65816
Sep 1, 2003
1,216
0
NYC
Woohoo!!! Though I'm skeptical, if Apple/IBM can get to 3.0 GHz by next year, with the 1.5 bus pipelines, it'll smoke Intel offerings as their chips are being milked out. AMD may be a different story but the masses of peecee users and the bull**** monopolies in the WIntel world will keep AMD from being a serious threat. By next year the G5 may just be not just barely beating but righteously spanking all other competitors!
 

Kid Red

macrumors 65816
Dec 14, 2001
1,417
148
Trolls must be out because i can't figure out why this article has 2 negative votes. I wish those voting results would be taken away, they degrade from the article.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.