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 G5 2.5GHz Benchmarks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i know precisely what these numbers mean.
they mean i'm coming unglued with anticipation of getting my dual 2.5 g5, 2 gigs ram, a terrabyte of hd space, etc. it's gonna be a sweet ride for me. as an audio engineer, the track counts, plug ins, and higher sample rates will take advantage of the extra power these new macs have. i'll still keep the dual g4, but it looks like the g5 will be so big an improvement that i won't look twice at the g4 anymore. wow.
they mean i'm coming unglued with anticipation of getting my dual 2.5 g5, 2 gigs ram, a terrabyte of hd space, etc. it's gonna be a sweet ride for me. as an audio engineer, the track counts, plug ins, and higher sample rates will take advantage of the extra power these new macs have. i'll still keep the dual g4, but it looks like the g5 will be so big an improvement that i won't look twice at the g4 anymore. wow.
Those look like video card benchies, not CPU benchies, and its no suprise that the 6800 destroys all the came before it. CPU/FSB/RAM benchmarks would be far more interesting.
Sorry, but they are wrong. Nobody would be happier than I to see the new G5 kick some serious butt, but there are a few things that need to be addressed. Cinebench has two flavors for OS X. One is a G5 targeted beta which is much faster on a G5. The older version, the one linked to in the XLR8 page is obviously the older one which I get similar results to on my own dual 2.0. Here is the correct result for the G5 version on a dual 2.0 (Rev A.):
CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************
Tester :
Processor : G5x2
MHz : 2000
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.3.4
Graphics Card : 9800 OEM
Resolution : 1680x1050
Color Depth : <fill this out>
****************************************************
Rendering (Single CPU): 288 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 503 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.75
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 278 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 783 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1494 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 5.37
****************************************************
I was lazy and didn't quit any apps and just dl'd the app from Maxon's site and ran the bench. If I rebooted and quit all other apps I could have gotten a bit better performance. The new dual 2.5 is fast but it is closer to the 25% clock speed increase, I think my benches are pretty close in fact to this number. It won't be anywhere near 50% faster. I just registered because I read MacRumors often and didn't want that error on the front page.
-Jerry C.
CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************
Tester :
Processor : G5x2
MHz : 2000
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.3.4
Graphics Card : 9800 OEM
Resolution : 1680x1050
Color Depth : <fill this out>
****************************************************
Rendering (Single CPU): 288 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 503 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.75
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 278 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 783 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1494 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 5.37
****************************************************
I was lazy and didn't quit any apps and just dl'd the app from Maxon's site and ran the bench. If I rebooted and quit all other apps I could have gotten a bit better performance. The new dual 2.5 is fast but it is closer to the 25% clock speed increase, I think my benches are pretty close in fact to this number. It won't be anywhere near 50% faster. I just registered because I read MacRumors often and didn't want that error on the front page.
-Jerry C.
legion said:
Since when is raytracing (rendering a final scene) offloaded to a graphics card at all...?
(If raytracing could be done in the video GPU, imagine the beautiful artistry that would appear on screen when playing Doom 3!)
Cinebench's first two tests (single-processor and multiprocessor rendering) are about as CPU intensive as a program gets - raytracing involves millions of high precision floating point calculations, none of which can be offloaded to a graphics card.
A good graphics card influences fast screen updates while modeling yes, but final rendering no - a hunking great processor or render farm is what you need there.
msconvert said:
This depends a lot on what the calculation is.
So General purpose CPU's like the G5 tend to be good at 'complex'
algorithms, things that have a lot of logic mixed with the math.
But graphics cards are _amazingly_ fast at doing the same
'simple' operation to many many pixels. They have great access
to memory and generaly have 8-16 little processors that all work
at the same time. But the processors aren't very flexible so if the
algorithm needs 'logic' it tends to get complex/slow/impossible to
do on the GPU.
Core Image is looking to move these simple things to the GPU.
Typically the bottle neck here is bandwidth to the card, so the
image spends more time going from main memory to the card
and back again (assuming it's needed in main memory at the
end of everything) than actually being processed by the card.
I think the card interfaces are speeding up so this isn't as big
a deal.
WorldMage said:
I wonder how long it will take for the G5 to get a PCI-Express interface for its graphics cards. Six months?
how does this compare to the barefeats g5, opteron and xeon benchmarks.
i would really like to know how this one compares to the bare-feats g5, opteron and xeon benchmarks.
their values are not in secs but in cf ratings can any one help
thank you
i would really like to know how this one compares to the bare-feats g5, opteron and xeon benchmarks.
their values are not in secs but in cf ratings can any one help
thank you
Sweet mother of god. I can't wait.
I wonder how my baby will play on my Max resolution of 1024x768 VGA gateway monitor! ooohh jeaaah....
*cries*
I wonder how my baby will play on my Max resolution of 1024x768 VGA gateway monitor! ooohh jeaaah....
*cries*
DavidCar said:
Depends on demand I guess. PCI-Express is in Intel's latest chipsets mainly because they want to shake up the status quo and get everyone to upgrade, not I think because graphics cards actually need it.
My understanding was that for the immediate future, AGP was just fine. Can graphics card yet saturate the 8x AGP bandwidth, let alone the 16x PCI-Express?
Mainboard makers are actually having to include both PCI-X (for backward compatibility) and PCI-Express, making for larger boards and bigger tower cases. I'm not sure Apple should go that route yet.
Once more cards are available for PCI-Express, maybe then's the right time.
2.5 on the way.
I should get my 2.5 G5 on the first week of Aug. if not slightly earlier.
I don't have the top graphics card but the std one is ok for my quick image editing for my biz.
If I buy one for home it will come with a 30in LCD and the 6800.
Maybe by Jan they will have the 3Ghz G5.
I should get my 2.5 G5 on the first week of Aug. if not slightly earlier.
I don't have the top graphics card but the std one is ok for my quick image editing for my biz.
If I buy one for home it will come with a 30in LCD and the 6800.
Maybe by Jan they will have the 3Ghz G5.
michaelb said:
PCI-X and PCI-Express have nothing to do with each other. They have completely different purposes. For now, if a mobo maker had both AGP and PCI-Express, then you'd have a valid point. The PCI-X on these systems isn't because of "backward compatability."
There's a fan on the Ultra DDL (hence part of the reason it takes up one of the PCI-X slots.)DMann said:
