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

PowerMac G5 1.6GHz PSBench 7 Results

Good to see the 1.6 Ghz G5 performing well against some higher clocked competitors. I imagine that the 200 mhz to 400 mhz difference in the 1.8 and 2.0 G5 to fair a bit better with the faster bus etc.

I'm curious how the 2.0 Ghz G5 will compare to the Athlon 2x or an Opteron 2X computer. I imagine there will be some gain, but not much with 400 Mhz difference. For xServe we really need to look at Opeteron......
 
Finally Some Real World Numbers

Holy silicon on a stick!

Assuming those benchmarks are even close to correct, the G5 is one helluva fast chip. The fact that, when you're comparing a 1.6Ghz single processor vs a 3Ghz P4 or a dual "2200" high-end Athlon setup, and the G5 is never less than half the speed of the competition, close in most tests, and toasts everything else in a few.

That's downright impressive, if you ask me, even if the PCs aren't the absolute top of the line for this week--neither is the 1.6, since it's using somewhat slower tech in the guts, and is the bottom of the line.

Unless things don't scale anywhere near linearly for some reason, that puts a DP 2.0 as being faster than pretty much anything in pretty much every test. Cool--get me some of that.
 
Originally posted by myrdred23
This still doesn't say anything about the "strange" Xbench results. The test compares PCs to the new G5, which is not to say is not useful, it is very much, but doesn't draw a bottom online on G4 vs G5 performance.

Anyone with a MDD 2x1.42 care to run that test so we can have a COMPLETE set of results?
Click to expand...

I have a 1.42.. I'll try and get back with the results
 
Re: One big note ...

Originally posted by jettredmont
Not to rain on the parade, but ...

The P4 configurations tested, using the Granite Bay chipset, are far from top-of-the-line today. They were current in Feb, 2003, not August 2003!

(rebate is $150)
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the G5 was only using DDR333, so to the extent that memory bandwidth affected the results, the G5 will also improve with the 1.8 and 2.0 Ghz models.

Furthermore, it is clear that no single processor machine will match the Dual 2 Ghz G5 in Photoshop. And the Dual Xeons only have the 533 Mhz bus, not the 800 Mhz bus, so the 533 Mhz is, coincidentally, probably the relevant bus to be testing.
 
Put "bottom of the line" in context

Originally posted by Makosuke
[the 1.6] is the bottom of the line.
Click to expand...

You mean it's lower than an iBook or an eMac????

It would be closer to say that every Power Mac G5 is close to top of the line. Identical (or very, very similar) architecture, and a fairly small spread in CPU speeds.

By comparison, the Pentium 4 family ranges from a 1.7GHz Celeron with a 400 MHz bus to a 3.2GHz P4 on an 800 MHz bus (with dual 3.06GHz on 533MHz as well).

The "bottom of the line" Power Mac G5 is not an econo-box - it's more like the Bentley of the Rolls-Royce line.



Originally posted by Makosuke
Assuming those benchmarks are even close to correct, the G5 is one helluva fast chip. The fact that, when you're comparing a 1.6Ghz single processor vs a 3Ghz P4 or a dual "2200" high-end Athlon setup, and the G5 is never less than half the speed of the competition, close in most tests, and toasts everything else in a few.
Click to expand...

Don't spend too much time looking at GHz - it's a myth, you know ;) . The G5 does well per MHz - but it doesn't have nearly as many MHz as the other guys.

The 1.6 is 80% of the speed of the top G5, and it's second to February's Pentium. Even linear scaling will put the 2.0GHz more or less even to a 3.2 GHz P4 with a current 800MHz mobo.

Apple's at least back in the ballgame, but these numbers say that it's a "base hit", not a "home run". Jobs' "world's fastest computer" claims might not seem justified once independent real world testing starts.
 
Re: One big note ...

Originally posted by jettredmont
....Dell has a P4/3.06/800MHz bus with a workstation video card for $2000 after rebate:


(rebate is $150)
Click to expand...

Cool. By the way, what OS do you get the [dis]pleasure of using? Oh, "the crappy popular one" or "the free and unsupported one"?

Yeah. I'll pass. I'll pay a premium for quality AND support anytime.
 
I used a 1.6 tonight and was not impressed. it didnt seem much (if at all) than the g4 quicksilver next to it. Also, smeagol still seams to have kinks in it. Soundtrack quit on me at random several times, then the computer just shut off all together. i also was not impressd with the bench mark results. the g5 "won" about 4 results. not good.
 
ok I just used my 1.42 for for the ps7bench advanced and the first test it actually beat the 1.6 g5 but after that it just got spanked for the next 5, I mean it wasnt even close. I stopped the testing after that because it just make me more jealous the more I tested. To put on top of that Im working with 2gb's of ram here.
 
cool stuff...so is Photoshop 8 going to be optimized even further or is it 'just' going to have the same G5 enabler as in the current release ? Could we see another dramatic speed increase if the whole thing got re-compiled for the G5 ?
 
Originally posted by synthetickittie
ok I just used my 1.42 for for the ps7bench advanced and the first test it actually beat the 1.6 g5 but after that it just got spanked for the next 5, I mean it wasnt even close. I stopped the testing after that because it just make me more jealous the more I tested. To put on top of that Im working with 2gb's of ram here.
Click to expand...

This machine is also a dual!? Right? I think the 1.6 did well in a comparison of two different tests!?? Apple is the only one so far who has performed benchmarks on both machines with the same tests. I think their results are the most reliable right now. As far as the performance of the 1.6 on the tests shown, aside from the comparative faults, look pretty good. This is a single processor machine at almost half the clock speed of some of those machines. I think it did very well. Now if we can only get someone to test the 2Ghz, when they come around, against the Xeon and P4 with the same continuity that Apple showed at WWDC.
 
Originally posted by Edot
This machine is also a dual!? Right? I think the 1.6 did well in a comparison of two different tests!?? Apple is the only one so far who has performed benchmarks on both machines with the same tests. I think their results are the most reliable right now. As far as the performance of the 1.6 on the tests shown, aside from the comparative faults, look pretty good. This is a single processor machine at almost half the clock speed of some of those machines. I think it did very well. Now if we can only get someone to test the 2Ghz, when they come around, against the Xeon and P4 with the same continuity that Apple showed at WWDC.
Click to expand...

Yes it is dual. Its the one they released at the end of january this year I think or was it the beginning of February? But anyways I ordered it as soon as they came out and got it about 2 months later.
 
Here's a dual Xeon 3.06 Ghz machine for comparision.
2 GB Ram (70% allocated), 533 Mhz bus, Photoshop 7.01, 50 MB Test.

90 degree clockwise rotation | 0.3| 0.3| 0.3|
9 degree clockwise rotation | 2.1| 2.1| 2.1 |
.9 degree clockwise rotation | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
1 pixel gaussian blur | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 |
3.7 pixel gaussian blur | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
8.5 pixel gaussian blur | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
50%, 1 pixel, 0 level unsharp mask | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.6 |
50%, 3.7 pixel, 1 level unsharp mask | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.3 |
50%, 10 pixel, 5 level unsharp mask | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.4 |
despeckle filter | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
RGB to CMYK | 5.3 | 5.5 | 5.3 |
60% image reduction | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
lens flare filter | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.4 |
color halftone filter | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.2 |
NTSC colors filter | 2.9 | 2.9 | 2.9 |
accented edges brushstrokes | 11.8 | 11.8 | 11.7 |
pointillize filter | 6.7 | 6.7 | 6.8 |
watercolor filter | 28.1 | 28.2 | 28.4 |
polar coordinates filter | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.3 |
radial blur filter | 17.3 | 17.2 | 17.3 |
lighting effects filter | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.3 |

Total Time: ~93.4 seconds.

I'll see if I can dig up some current P4 scores later on...
 
Re: it's RDF rebound

Originally posted by AidenShaw

But don't panic, at last the latest G5 Mac is roughly as fast as a Pentium
Click to expand...

And an OS that's 3 times better:) ... I think the concensus around here is we like Macs and we like our Macs as fast as or Faster than the top PC speed. And we love the Mac experience...for the most part. It's been the PC users argument for years... "Oh Macs are slow" well you know what not anymore.

um...let me guess next you'll say they're more expensive and I can build my PC for blah blah...

Let us Mac fans enjoy our G5's and using our Macs... If you don't want to buy into Steve Job's Keynotes and Apple products then don't.. :rolleyes:
 
This thread has the possibility (as had many other "scores" threads before it) of becoming a pissing contest between one machine and the other. I know that's pretty much what the figures are for, but still...
Anyway, I'm chiming in with my "pleasantly suprised" feelings towards these scores. I feel as though I've somehow stayed out of the "it will run circles around anything else" mindset and thought realistically about this. Sure it's new. Sure it's stuff most of us don't understand (64 bits). Sure it uses a LOT of ram. But what I figured would happen happened. It performed really well in heated competition of it's peers. We're talking about thousandths of seconds on most of these tests. You can't really fathom how quick that is, and you certainly won't notice it with the naked eye if the machines were side by side.

Does that make me want one less?

Nu-uh. I still want one. I may even want one more now that I've seen this. But I'll hold out for a dual - because even tho as many of you have pointed out Photoshop is not a 64 bit app, it is however built to take advantage of multiple processors, lots of ram, and lots of drive space. And I plan on feeding one to the gills when I'm able.
 
how could they do this test without a dual 1.4 g4 for reference, thats the only way mac users can get a true idea of whats going on.
oops just saw synthetickittie's post so i guess it spanked the g4 can you give us some data cause i want to see g4vs g5 caomparisons in real life apps
 
Re: Re: it's RDF rebound

Actually, in the last 15 years or so, I'd say Macs have had the reputation of being faster for the majority of that time. From the time the G3 came out to about the summer of 2000, I think people thought of Apples as being faster. Over the years I'd say the main knocks on Apple have been that their machines are too expensive, and too incompatible/lacking software (particularly games). It is only in the last 3 or so years that Apple has flat out fallen apart in terms of speed. When the 400mhz iMac came out in 1999, there was no brand name PC that could touch it at its price. In these last 4 years Apple (or should I say Motorola/IBM) has quadrupled processor speeds. Intel and co. have gone up about 8 fold. Now Apples are slower. The G5 appears to have narrowed that gap to the point where it is questionable as to who is the fastest, but unlike the 400mhz G3 iMac of '99 (a period I would consider Apple's high point of the last 10 years), we don't have G5s in an iMac.
Oh, and one comment on the new iMac - Apple should never have switched to the LCD display - the price of the new iMacs make their niche too small. With the original iMacs, other intro level comps were pricier than they are now. iMacs should cost $700-$800 - now I know that is what the eMac costs, but it seems to me that Apple is pretty indifferent to the eMac. They don't market it. They don't make it cool or give add anything particularly innovative to it (like they did do with the iMac.
Sorry if I wandered off topic.


Originally posted by whawho
And an OS that's 3 times better:) ... I think the concensus around here is we like Macs and we like our Macs as fast as or Faster than the top PC speed. And we love the Mac experience...for the most part. It's been the PC users argument for years... "Oh Macs are slow" well you know what not anymore.

um...let me guess next you'll say they're more expensive and I can build my PC for blah blah...

Let us Mac fans enjoy our G5's and using our Macs... If you don't want to buy into Steve Job's Keynotes and Apple products then don't.. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
Re: Re: Re: it's RDF rebound

Originally posted by maxterpiece
Apple is pretty indifferent to the eMac
Click to expand...

Of course; the profit margin has to be pretty low. But the eMac is a far better value than the iMac, which is ludicrously overpriced, especially now that you can get a dual G4 tower for less than the midrange model (no monitor, but still).
 
Re: Re: Re: it's RDF rebound

Originally posted by maxterpiece
Actually, in the last 15 years or so, I'd say Macs have had the reputation of being faster for the majority of that time. From the time the G3 came out to about the summer of 2000, I think people thought of Apples as being faster. Over the years I'd say the main knocks on Apple have been that their machines are too expensive, and too incompatible/lacking software (particularly games).
Click to expand...

Yup you're right. I meant more as of lately last few years (since I've owned one.) when referring to the speed.
 
My Benchmarks

Ok, I've decided to do my own benchmarks on a new Pentium 4. Processes:

Start windows: 20 secs
Launch Photoshop 7: 8 secs
Start PSBench: 2 secs
Get hit by Sobig.F: 0.5 secs
Swear at my computer: 1 min.
Spread virus to friends: continuous
Try to patch my computer: 2 days
Start over again after patch: 20 sec
Launch Photoshop: 8 secs
Start PSBench: 2 secs
Get hit by a variant of Sobig.F: 1.5 secs
Curse at my computer: 10 min
Spread new virus: continuous
Try to patch: 1 day
Take computer to shooting range: 30 min.
Fill computer full of lead: 1 hour.
Go home and relax: 3 hours...

Ya that about covers it. I know it isn't very scientific. But I'll stay with OS X. Besides any of you thinking that your G5 is too slow, feel free to donate it to me. My 450 AGP G4 could use a nice retirement.;)
 
Re: One big note ...

Originally posted by jettredmont

Ref: Dell has a P4/3.06/800MHz bus with a workstation video card for $2000 after rebate:

Dell Precision™ Workstation 360 Desktop
Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor, 3.00GHz, 512K / 800 Front
Side Bus
Qty: 1
Price: $2,160.00

(rebate is $150) [/B]
Click to expand...

The price that I came up with was $2261 before the rebate and that did not include any FireWire and only had a basic CD-RW drive (no DVD capabilities at all; no read and no write). What did you take off the config in order to lower the price?

Also you should be aware that you can buy a 1.8Ghz G5 PowerMac with a CD-RW/DVD Combo drive for $2199 from the Apple Store. Thus, when you figure in that Dell also charges at least $75 for shipping (whereas the PowerMac ships for free), your Dell Workstation costs more than the 1.8Ghz PowerMac.
 
Someone mentioned in the MacNN thread that according to Adobe the optimized Adobe Plugin was only optimized for the basic operations.
Now this is strictly a conjecture, but I suspect "water color" and the other bigger filters aren't considered a basic operations...

Which means this is only scratching the surface of what Photoshop will be able to do with the G5.

Doesn't this screaming and cursing echo a little of the 68000->Power PC transition?
 
Re: Put "bottom of the line" in context

Originally posted by AidenShaw
The 1.6 is 80% of the speed of the top G5, and it's second to February's Pentium. Even linear scaling will put the 2.0GHz more or less even to a 3.2 GHz P4 with a current 800MHz mobo.
Click to expand...

How do you figure the single 1.6Ghz G5 PowerMac with a slower bus, slower RAM, etc, to be 80% of the speed of a Dual 2Ghz PowerMac?
 
Calm Down

Perhaps we would do well to keep a few things mind --

The differences between the 1.6GHz G5 machine and it's faster syblings are greater than just clock and frontside bus: the 1.6 uses slower 333MHz DDR, limited to 4GB, the 1.8 and Dual 2.0 use 400MHz DDR, in up to 8GB; the 1.6 has standard 33/66MHz PCI, whereas the 1.8 and 2.0s use the 133MHz PCI-X standard.

Ultimately, unless you're going to run Linux or employ your new machines for data crunching or custom scientific applications, comparing Pentiums to PPC 970s serves no valid purpose (beyond nerd bragging rights).

Ultimately, the advantage for most end-users lies in the operating system, where OS X bests all others.
 
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