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

PowerMac G5 2.5GHz Benchmarks

Any idea why my 2.5 order would have a shipping date of 8/2 if i ordered it only a couple of days after release?

It is a BTO, but all I added was a bigger hard drive, AE, and Bluetooth. Oh, and it was ordered as a developer. Any ideas when it may REALLY ship?
 
eric_n_dfw said:
Forgive my ignorance, but why would the smaller process size in and of itself increase performace? I thought the point of the smalller size was to shorten the distances the electrons need to travel, thus allowing the higher clock speeds.
Click to expand...
Smaller process size allows for higher theoretical clock speeds, but does not increase the processor speed at any given clock speed. A 2 GHz processor completes 2 billion cycles per second, whether it is on a 130 nm, a 90 nm, or a 65 nm process.
 
eric_n_dfw said:
Forgive my ignorance, but why would the smaller process size in and of itself increase performace? I thought the point of the smalller size was to shorten the distances the electrons need to travel, thus allowing the higher clock speeds.
Click to expand...

Shorter distance for electrons to travel = less latency = higher performance.
It's not a lot of performance, but it could be measurable under the right circumstances.
 
Soire said:
Any idea why my 2.5 order would have a shipping date of 8/2 if i ordered it only a couple of days after release?

It is a BTO, but all I added was a bigger hard drive, AE, and Bluetooth. Oh, and it was ordered as a developer. Any ideas when it may REALLY ship?
Click to expand...

my BTO 2.5 was ordered from the applestore online and still shows on or by 7/30 as the shipping. it was hinted that it may arrive sooner and that the given date was a safe estimate. i'd love to know if some of these would really be shipping sooner. any ideas?
 
numbers..

I got bummed when I saw the numbers. My poor old slow Rev A G5. Pffffft.
Ran C4D-G5Beta myself, 1.5GB RAM

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Zack

Processor : DP G5
MHz : 2 x 2.0 GHz
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.2.4

Graphics Card : 9800Pro OEM 128MB 22"ACD

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 288 CB-CPU 356
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 510 CB-CPU 633

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.77 1.78

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 276 CB-GFX 335
Shading (OpenGL Software) : 797 CB-GFX 995
Shading (OpenGL Hardware) : 1526 CB-GFX 1794

OpenGL Speedup: 5.52 5.36


Looks like a decent speed bump, but not a terribly huge one.

Z
 
of course!

nuckinfutz said:
You're "never" going to want to use the audio capabilities of the computer(hardware wise). After getting Logic you'll need to investigate a good audio interface. PCI or FW or USB, Core Audio was meant to handle these quite well.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course! I already use the motu828 and will hopefully soon be purchasing a Metric Halo. I still found that the computer was still feeding my mixer noise. Hmm... what was I doing wrong?
 
Soire said:
Any idea why my 2.5 order would have a shipping date of 8/2 if i ordered it only a couple of days after release?

It is a BTO, but all I added was a bigger hard drive, AE, and Bluetooth. Oh, and it was ordered as a developer. Any ideas when it may REALLY ship?
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that any BTO machine would take longer to deliver, because it has to be customized. eg - a current 1.8 DP that is ordered off the apple store has a ship date of the same business day. If you add a bigger drive, blue tooth and AE, the ship date moves up to 7-10 business days. And considering that they have to get the machine in stock (presumably the end of july) before they can customize it, that might explain the delay in your ship date until early august.

If you keep your fingers crossed like me though, maybe apple is just being conservative in their expected ship dates and we'll all get them early.
 
zac4mac said:
I got bummed when I saw the numbers. My poor old slow Rev A G5. Pffffft.
Ran C4D-G5Beta myself, 1.5GB RAM

CINEBENCH 2003 v1
****************************************************

Tester : Zack

Processor : DP G5
MHz : 2 x 2.0 GHz
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : 10.2.4

Graphics Card : 9800Pro OEM 128MB 22"ACD

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 288 CB-CPU 356
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 510 CB-CPU 633

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.77 1.78

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 276 CB-GFX 335
Shading (OpenGL Software) : 797 CB-GFX 995
Shading (OpenGL Hardware) : 1526 CB-GFX 1794

OpenGL Speedup: 5.52 5.36


Looks like a decent speed bump, but not a terribly huge one.

Z
Click to expand...

Yeah you got the radeon 9800pro and 1.5Gb Ram.

This is at least a fair comparisson between the old high-end and the new high-end. Processor speed is up by 25% as expected and OpenGL with 20%, which seems a bit low, so either nvidia or cinebench should put more effort in harnassing the power of the gefore 6800. It would be nice to see also a bench with the 2.5Ghz and the radeon 9800 to see wether it is worth the money to buy the gefore 6800.
 
fregedegpo said:
Yes, of course! I already use the motu828 and will hopefully soon be purchasing a Metric Halo. I still found that the computer was still feeding my mixer noise. Hmm... what was I doing wrong?
Click to expand...

this is being discussed now on either motu mac or daw mac email lists. one thing mentioned is actually disconnecting the cable in the computer that relates to it's internal sound. that seemed to be where the noise came in from. some sort of grounding issue is suspected. after that some users reported their interfaces were dead quiet again. see if you can do that and let us know how it works for you.
 
thanks, pounce

pounce said:
this is being discussed now on either motu mac or daw mac email lists. one thing mentioned is actually disconnecting the cable in the computer that relates to it's internal sound. that seemed to be where the noise came in from. some sort of grounding issue is suspected. after that some users reported their interfaces were dead quiet again. see if you can do that and let us know how it works for you.
Click to expand...
Will do, buddy! But I have to buy the computer first! Again, I was hoping to find out if the new cpus are still having this problem in the first place. Nothing would make me happier than going all digital. I just need a new mixing board for that... 🙂
 
How does one use two 30" screens on a G5, if just one requires both ports on the 6800? What am I missing? 🙂

<]=)
 
That's the part that was confusing me. I thought that "Dual Link DVI" meant that 2 cables were required like the Viewsonic 2290b. I just found the info in their tech-spec PDF though that talks about how one DVI port can use a single or dual-link bandwidth. So I'm no longer confused. 🙂

<]=)
 
These two answers contradict each other:

MacinDoc said:
Smaller process size allows for higher theoretical clock speeds, but does not increase the processor speed at any given clock speed. A 2 GHz processor completes 2 billion cycles per second, whether it is on a 130 nm, a 90 nm, or a 65 nm process.
Click to expand...

gerardrj said:
Shorter distance for electrons to travel = less latency = higher performance.
It's not a lot of performance, but it could be measurable under the right circumstances.
Click to expand...

Am I wrong?
 
eric_n_dfw said:
These two answers contradict each other:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacinDoc
Smaller process size allows for higher theoretical clock speeds, but does not increase the processor speed at any given clock speed. A 2 GHz processor completes 2 billion cycles per second, whether it is on a 130 nm, a 90 nm, or a 65 nm process.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gerardrj
Shorter distance for electrons to travel = less latency = higher performance.
It's not a lot of performance, but it could be measurable under the right circumstances.



Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

No, they don't.
To my knowledge they're both saying similar things. The smaller size (90nm) does mean a shorter distance for electrons to travel = less latency (response time for the electrons to move) = higher performance.
Macindoc states this as "Smaller process size allows for higher theoretical clock speeds" which is also true.
Just making it smaller doesn't make it that much faster. Other things are involved for you to obtain higher clock speeds. Smaller also means lower power usage.
 
g4cubed said:
No, they don't.
To my knowledge they're both saying similar things. The smaller size (90nm) does mean a shorter distance for electrons to travel = less latency (response time for the electrons to move) = higher performance.
Macindoc states this as "Smaller process size allows for higher theoretical clock speeds" which is also true.
Just making it smaller doesn't make it that much faster. Other things are involved for you to obtain higher clock speeds. Smaller also means lower power usage.
Click to expand...
Actually making it smaller doesn't make it faster at all even if the latency, as described here, is smaller.

A smaller latency would theoretically allow the cpu to be run at higher clock, if other issues still prevents the cpu from being stable at higher clock speeds, then you gain nothing from the lower latency.

You could view this as measurable voltage traveling between transistors. In a smaller cpu, the voltage needs to travel a shorter distance (less latency if you like), but the voltage is only measured at every clock tick, so even if the voltage state arrived earlier at the next transistor gate with a die shrink, the voltage will not be measured earlier if the clock frequency isn't increased.
 
What are peoples due dates for non-BTO dual 2.5's?
especially anyone in Aus. Mine is ordered through a reseller so i was wondering how my waiting time compares to others.
 
g4cubed said:
No, they don't.
To my knowledge they're both saying similar things. The smaller size (90nm) does mean a shorter distance for electrons to travel = less latency (response time for the electrons to move) = higher performance.
Macindoc states this as "Smaller process size allows for higher theoretical clock speeds" which is also true.
Just making it smaller doesn't make it that much faster. Other things are involved for you to obtain higher clock speeds. Smaller also means lower power usage.
Click to expand...
I believe you are correct. It is the shorter distance travelled by electrons that allows the processor to complete more cycles per second. If you're running around a 90m track, you will complete more laps in ten minutes than if you were running around a 130m track. I doubt that a 130 nm chip could remain stable running at 2.5 GHz, just as you would be more fatigued trying to complete the same number of laps of the longer track in the same amount of time.

The clock speed is an objective measure of how many cycles a processor completes in 1 second. This is not, however, the same as the number of calculations per second, because modern processors complete more than one calculation per second, and the difference in the number of calculations per cycle is one of the reasons that a PPC 970 running at 2.5 GHz does not have the same apparent speed as a Pentium 4 chip running at 2.5 GHz. From what I understand, however, the architecture (number of VPUs etc) of the 970 is the same as the 970FX, so they should complete the same number of calculations per cycle.

Of course, take all of this with a grain of salt, because I am neither a physicist nor an engineer... 😉
 
JackAxe said:
That's a massive jump aussiemac86. You should get more RAM though. 🙂

<]=)
Click to expand...

I'll be going from a g3 500 Mhz iBook with I believe 67 Mhz Frontside bus to a 2.5 G5 DualProcessor with 9600XT and 1.25 Ghz frontside bus. Not as big a jump as aussiemac, but still 5x is gonna blow me away... 🙂
 
Soire said:
I'll be going from a g3 500 Mhz iBook with I believe 67 Mhz Frontside bus to a 2.5 G5 DualProcessor with 9600XT and 1.25 Ghz frontside bus. Not as big a jump as aussiemac, but still 5x is gonna blow me away... 🙂
Click to expand...
Stop! You're both making me jealous! 😉
 
The G5/2.0GHz MP Cinebench rating listed in comparison with the G5/2.5GHz MP doesn't appear to be "correct." I've used the "G5 beta" version of Cinebench 2003 on a G5/2.0GHz MP with Radeon 9800 OEM graphics.

I get a CPU rating of 522, making the G5/2.5 only 21% faster.

I get an OpenGL HardWare rating of 1505.
 
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