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

PowerMac Dual 2.0GHz PS7Bench Benchmarks

Those RGB-CMYK scores are nice. the G5 2.0 is 4 times faster than a PC. The 1.6 is about 2 times faster.

When you're doing a magazine with lots of photos in, converting RGB-CMYK is one of the most intensive things you do. You may do radial blurs and polar coordinates a few times but on 100s of pages of photos, I'll take the RGB-CMYK conversion scores any day.

I suspect the G4 is pretty quick at RGB-CMYK also though. Anyone got benchmarks for that?
 
Re: just the start

Originally posted by ffakr
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.
Click to expand...

Clock speed boost would be nice, but I think we're also going to need a L2 cache boost. Return of L3 would be great. Plus, Apple needs to regularly update the RAM speed that its motherboards can support.

That means that I'd like to see, in say 6 months, Apple selling G5s that support 466 or 533 MHz RAM.

It's all about staying current. We've seen it in the past: A new architecture (EVEN the G4, which we all LOVED, admit it) gives a needed infusion of strength to the pro line, but development slows quickly and Apple gets behind.

Apple needs to update the motherboard frequently, and even when it doesn't have a processor bump, it should at least quietly update other important things.

Convincing nVIDIA and ATI to shell out better Mac GPUs would be nice, too.
 
Originally posted by mvc

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.
Click to expand...

You talk of IBM as if it were a ragtag bunch of youthful, but quick-witted engineers, with a couple of bucks and a little fab plant down the road. The vast resources of IBM's R&D are incomprehensible. IBM has its hand in every part of processor development, from the most basic physics research to the most specific PowerPC core development.

...And that architecture you mentioned...Well, when AMD, but more Intel, continuously heaps a bunch of new specialized instructions and features onto the same-old processor and overclocks it like anything, you'll get a faster, yes, but also more inefficient chip. Their designs aren't elegant, they are patchwork. It's not like their chip is faster because they actually redesigned it to be great, it's just that they pumped in a whole lot of crap to get one little bit of a rating.
 
I'm pleased to say I can change my sig...My dp 2ghz G5 is en route and should be here by 10:30 am according to FedEx...Long day of class and **** first though:(
 
Pentiums (P6 and later) are x86 emulators

Originally posted by themadchemist
Well, when AMD, but more Intel, continuously heaps a bunch of new specialized instructions and features onto the same-old processor and overclocks it like anything
Click to expand...

Since the days of the P6 the Intel chips are really more like RISC processors that emulate the "same-old" x86 ISA. The internal core is not running x86.

That "same-old" instruction set is a burden, and makes it harder to make fast Pentiums, but your implication that a Pentium 4 is an overclocked 486 shouldn't be allowed to stand. (And fast clocking isn't overclocking....)
 
To the guy talking about low power 970s being quieter - have you used a G5?

I used a 1.8 recently, and could hardly tell the thing was ON. It was THAT quiet.

Cube style, only in the cube, you could hear the HDD.

H:D
 
Originally posted by gotohamish
To the guy talking about low power 970s being quieter - have you used a G5?

I used a 1.8 recently, and could hardly tell the thing was ON. It was THAT quiet.

Cube style, only in the cube, you could hear the HDD.

H:D
Click to expand...

But have you done any sort of cpu intensive task? Divx work, games :), and other similar cpu intensive task will heat up the cpu core--there is a difference between the idle temps and load temps of your cpu core--with the delta being bigger with the worse the heatsink.

When the cpu is @ idle, i too can throttle my cpu fan to < 2000rpm, but do i WANT to is the question.
 
Very impressive scores, just goes to show how well the G5 can scale in comparison to the Xeon.

Tianguiho:
Excellent chart although it should be noted that the overall time I've seen from Dual 3.06 GHz Xeons are slightly faster than the overall time posted for the G5 (95.1 secs) (those normalized scores do correspond with overall times right?).
 
G5 Supercomputer

What I want to see are the specs on this new G5 supercomputer cluster. A few pics would be cool too. ::hint::hint::
 
Dont Forgett

The G5 wil lget even more and more and more faster in Future not only because of the Clock (3GHZ ind August 04), dont forgett the RAM DDR2 is coming and it should be no Prob for Apple to change controller settings so the G5 gets faster RAM and he self has no problems with it because on EVERY S*** MHz he gets MORE BUS SPEED !!! So DDR2 533 or more and a 3 GHz G5 with a incredible 1.5 GHz BUS thats why I say IBM is perfect and their chip also because Intel cant get that fast with the Bus, they must build new Revisions of their Chip -- IBM only must rise in Clock rest is doing alone !
 
Re: Dont Forgett

Originally posted by macmunch
The G5 wil lget even more and more and more faster in Future not only because of the Clock (3GHZ ind August 04), dont forgett the RAM DDR2 is coming and it should be no Prob for Apple to change controller settings so the G5 gets faster RAM and he self has no problems with it because on EVERY S*** MHz he gets MORE BUS SPEED !!! So DDR2 533 or more and a 3 GHz G5 with a incredible 1.5 GHz BUS thats why I say IBM is perfect and their chip also because Intel cant get that fast with the Bus, they must build new Revisions of their Chip -- IBM only must rise in Clock rest is doing alone !
Click to expand...
Don't forget that the PC world is also on the move!
I guess at 23 sept. the PowerMac will not be the fastest computer any more, if it ever was.

This is how fast the AMD Opteron 246 is compared to the 242 version.
prosentforskjell-242.png
 
Yup right but the Hammer Processors also have a prob they have a intigrated DDR RAM controller as far as i know 266, yes its fast right now but they will have more to do to change it every revision. And I think IBM will rise Clock faster than AMD but not faster as Intel but Intel chips are not so fast with High clock rates as AMD or IBM is :D
 
While I understand the strategy from Apple's sales standpoint, I wish that with the next update, you could still buy a dual 2.0 Ghz machine instead of a single as I expect them do to.

That is to say I expect the next update to be: single 1.8, single 2.0 and dual 2.5(ish).
 
Originally posted by macmunch
Yup right but the Hammer Processors also have a prob they have a intigrated DDR RAM controller as far as i know 266, yes its fast right now but they will have more to do to change it every revision. And I think IBM will rise Clock faster than AMD but not faster as Intel but Intel chips are not so fast with High clock rates as AMD or IBM is :D
Click to expand...
Is this a bad thing? When the CPU speed goes up, the integrated ram controller will also do so.
This means that you get a lower latency and you dont have to boost the FSB when the MHz is getting higher. So far the 246 uses DDR333.
When windows gets 64 bit and the software to it will be even faster.
The new Opteron has a great future!

Don't think Mac people would choose a Opteron over a G5 because it runst 2 sec faster in a Photoshop test. I personaly choose Mac because of the feeling I get when I use it.
I really hope Macromedia 2004 is better than MX series on the Mac-platform. MX and flashplayer is so much better on Windows. This is my biggest consern after price.
 
One important item to not forget, this is without the fully optimized OS X 10.3 which takes full potential of the 64 processors.

Also, the program isnt optimized for it yet either.

so......... my bet is that this will become one smoking machine when it advances more.


also.... all bets are off when the next version comes with faster chips. whoah.
 
the opteron is ALSO not optimized, and not in 64-bit mode. Those benchmarks are ALL in 32-bit mode, just like the G5's current benchmarks have all been in 32-bit.

Secondly, Athlon64 will be supporting ddr400 dual channel and HIGHER. The majority of Opteron benches are hampered by ddr333 and only amdzone and another site have actually used the ddr400 registered memory to show the opteron with "room to stretch its legs".

As the Opteron has an on-die memory controller, slower ddr333 has heavy ramifications in slowing down cpu.

On another note, i ran the PSBench and got MUCH slower times than the ones posted by Acehardware.

Am i missing a SSE/AthlonXP plugin for Photoshop 7?

Thanks.
 
Re: Re: Dont Forgett

Originally posted by F/reW/re
Don't forget that the PC world is also on the move!
I guess at 23 sept. the PowerMac will not be the fastest computer any more, if it ever was.
Click to expand...

Apple never claimed the G5 was the fastest computer, but the fastest personal computer - a different thing. Anyone doubting that the G5, and the Itanium and Opteron are in different fields, should look at sales figures ( figures from The Register, sourced from IDC ). The G5 pre-orders alone dwarfed the entire quarterly sales of the other two chips combined.

Mike.
 
Comparison of scores between G5 and Xeon:

0.30 | 0.30- Tie
1.30 | 2.10- G5 62%
1.20 | 2.00- G5 66%
0.30 | 0.60- G5 100%
1.20 | 1.30- G5 8.3%
1.80 | 1.60- Xeon 13%
0.50 | 0.60- G5 20%
1.40 | 1.30- Xeon 8%
1.60 | 1.30- Xeon 23%
0.40 | 1.30- G5 225%
1.70 | 5.40- G5 318%
0.40 | 0.50- G5 25%
3.30 | 1.40- Xeon 136%
2.80 | 2.20- Xeon 28%
3.20 | 2.90- Xeon 10%
12.1 | 11.8- Xeon 3%
10.7 | 6.70- Xeon 60%
26.7 | 28.2- G5 6%
2.20 | 3.30- G5 50%
20.4 | 17.3- Xeon 18%
1.60 | 1.30- Xeon 23%

Xeon won 10/21 filters
Mean Deviation between Xeon and G5 in filters won by Xeon: 32%

G5 also won 10/21 filters
Mean Deviation between Xeon and G5 in filters won by G5: 88%

Again, highly impressive.
 


Isn't the opteron way more expensive than the G5?

I priced a dual 3.02 xeon that was $1000 more than my Dual2.0G5.

I'd like to see a Windoze box compete on price with the Dual 2.0.
Is any such beast on the horizon?
 
Originally posted by Cubeboy
Very impressive scores, just goes to show how well the G5 can scale in comparison to the Xeon.

Tianguiho:
Excellent chart although it should be noted that the overall time I've seen from Dual 3.06 GHz Xeons are slightly faster than the overall time posted for the G5 (95.1 secs) (those normalized scores do correspond with overall times right?).
Click to expand...

Normalized scores do NOT correspond with overall times. In overall times, tests that take longer (like the watercolor filter) dominate over the shorter-timed tests. So a machine that does better in the longer-timed tests would have an advantage. Normalized scores gives each test equal weight.
 
I would love to see how many points is produces folding for a few days. I am working on a Dual Xeon Server at the moment and It was pumping out an average of 80pts a day.
 
Originally posted by dongmin
Normalized scores do NOT correspond with overall times. In overall times, tests that take longer (like the watercolor filter) dominate over the shorter-timed tests. So a machine that does better in the longer-timed tests would have an advantage. Normalized scores gives each test equal weight.
Click to expand...

I was under the assumption that the scores were only normalized to that of a 1 GHz thunderbird. You mean to take the geometric mean of the normalized scores, right?
 
Hmmm....now where is Neotronik? According to what he said in his previous posts about the "disappointing" G5/1.6 PSBench results, he should now reinstate the "order" (that I doubt he ever had) for the Dual G5. Not that I am trying to attract trolls back to the forums.
 
Originally posted by Genie
How soon do you think PC3200 DDR400 Gigabyte Ram sticks will be cost effective? (around $200, which is what two 512's cost).
Click to expand...
Unfortunately not soon enough for a less expensive BTO option of the factory-installed 1GB SO-DIMM on new Powerbooks and iMacs. That made it less tempting to upgrade my iBook 600 to a Powerbook.

I'd like to buy some new Mac this year but it's not an obvious choice since I've already decided to hold off on the G5 'til at least the next revision.
 
Re: good to see...

Originally posted by ddbean
I'm updating from a 1994 6100/60 PPC w/233 Mhz G3 card, 2 gig hd, 72 MB ram, 4x cd, borrowed 15" monitor running OS8.6 to a Dual 2Ghz G5 w/ ATI Radeon 9800 Pro and 20" Apple Display.
Click to expand...
Wow, I thought it was a big jump when my mom upgraded from a 6115CD (stock HD, processor, and CD drive, running 8.1) to a 700 MHz G4 iMac. But I think you've got her beat! :D

WM
 
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