Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
daRAT, no technical basis really. Pure speculation. In fact I think it was too early in the morning for me to really say much. I have to edit that message.

What was on my mind is that the reason we have not seen many home made benchmarks is because not many of these new macs have been shipped/delivered at all. Thereby I somewhat disagree with your thought about people not being concerned with benchmarking; on the contrary I have a feeling many new owners will be doing that first thing.

But my main thought is the fact that Apple has said +100k have been ordered (although I believe the vast majority were duals) but probably the only ones who got them so far in numbers are Apple's corporate clients.
And I bet no individual will even see a dual before September.
 
Re: "Surprisingly few new reports ..."

Ok, maybe this question has been asked but the relative trickle of information about the G5 is killing me.

Does anyone on this site have an "Expected Ship Date" prior to 8/29?

I guess a few 1.6 machines seem to have made their way to the public. But has anyone received the dually?

My "Expected" ship date is 8/29 (and has been for a month) and I'm startin' to get the shakes. Please Apple don't be late!
 
Re: Re: "Surprisingly few new reports ..."

Originally posted by daRAT
I know if I had got one, the first thing on my mind would be to spend a weekend enjoying the new machine ;]

But the G5s and old G4s all run the same OS X and software. Really, the biggest difference is the speed of the G5s--in which case "enjoying" the new machine is equivalent to benchmarking it. :D
 
Originally posted by twinturbo
Why's everyone running Cinebench on the new G5's, esp. when it's not even optimized for the platform? Photoshop's optimzed now, and no one is running PSBench7 or anything like that to see just how these systems stack up. I'm finding that very agrivating, cause there's a lot of anti-mac bantering going on (and I must admit I've been a bit disappointed in the results myself) around these benchmarks. So how about an optimized Photoshop benchmark to kick things in gear? Anyone?

Yes, Photoshop would be a much better benchmark for comparison (since it has been at least somewhat optimized for the G5). However, people are running Cinebench because all you have to do is download a single file and run it. With PS, you need to actually own the application, either that or separately download the demo version (which is not as easy to find as Cinebench), the G5 patch (may or may not actually work with the demo version!), and the benchmark file/scripts. It is much harder. So that, unfortunately, is why people are resorting to Cinebench.

Incidentally, my friend at Adobe tells me that some engineers ran a massive Photoshop benchmark (it tooks hours to run!), and the G5 really was *double* the speed of the G4. Also, a Maxon developer has posted that a recompiled version of Cinebench scores around 265 CB for the single CPU test with the 2 Ghz G5. I believe that the Dual 1.42 Ghz scores around 135 CB for the single CPU test, so you can see that the 2 Ghz G5 is *twice* as fast as the fastest G4 in this test. Do you see a pattern forming? I hope it holds for other real world apps too (when they have been recompiled)... ;-)

Incidentally, this G5 score for the single CPU bench would be comparable to an Athlon 3200+ or a P4 2.66 Ghz. For whatever reason the P4 does especially well at Cinebench (as you can see since it handily beats the fastest Athlon...and that is without even using Hyperthreading), so losing to the fastest Xeon (3.06 Ghz) by 10% in this test is not a problem in my view, given that it is basically the worst case scenario for the G5.
 
Originally posted by DeusOmnis
Can anyone tell me what the vecLib FFT test is? My computer scored EXTREMELY low in it... a 23.97. I'm running a dual 1.0 ghz G4 MDD and I got wasted by a Dual 800 mhz Quicksilver machine.
That's the type of result that makes me skeptical of Xbench, in general. I ran it twice on my 1GHz TiBook. The first time the FFT test score was terrible, similar to your results. I ran it again and got a score 5x higher! And, yes, I had quit all other apps. On top of it all, 1.1 *still* says my CPU is 667 MGz, instead of 1 GHz.

On the topic of G5 optimized software builds: Don't you think Apple will recompile OS X and all their apps for the G5? Of course they will. Photoshop has already optimized for G5. Any major app on the Mac will want the G5 boost, most of which will come simply by running with the tweaked OS X libraries / frameworks.
 
Originally posted by daveL
On top of it all, 1.1 *still* says my CPU is 667 MGz, instead of 1 GHz.

do you think it's possible that it's giving you the current cpu speed? I'm pretty sure OS X automatically throttles down the CPU on a laptop if it's not being used.
But if it were reporting the cpu speed incorrectly, it wouldn't surprise me. I've heard a lot of complaints about it.
 
Originally posted by daveL
That's the type of result that makes me skeptical of Xbench, in general. I ran it twice on my 1GHz TiBook. The first time the FFT test score was terrible, similar to your results. I ran it again and got a score 5x higher!

This is actually the kind of result that should make you skeptical of benchmarks in general, not just Xbench, but particularly benchmarks which are designed to be dropped onto a given machine and run by amateurs.

Just quitting all other user applications is not sufficient to get consistent results out of a benchmark. Modern OSes have so much going on under the hood that closing other apps is just the tip of the iceberg.

And here we get to the fundamental catch-22 of benchmarking. In order to generate consistent, reproducable results, you must get the system into a state that in no way resembles the typical running state of the machine, and thus the numbers don't really inform the discussion of real-world performance. On the other hand, benchmarks which allege to gauge real-world performance are a joke because there is no consistency, and there's always room for argument on the basis of the individual system context.

It seems like it ought to be easy to just get an answer to the question, "how fast is it?" I've done this professionally, though, and it's nothing like "easy." I hate even reading about benchmarks nowadays, because the results are almost meaningless.
 
test1:

Results 124.04
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1
System Version 10.2.7
Physical RAM 256 MB
Model PowerMac7,2
Processor PowerPC 970 @ 1.60 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1600 MHz
Bus Frequency 800 MHz
Video Card GeForce FX 5200
Drive Type ST380013AS
CPU Test 90.16
GCD Recursion 72.93 2.85 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 210.14 747.32 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 78.29 1.14 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 49.00 755.06 Mflop/sec
Floating Point Library 262.85 10.52 Mops/sec
Thread Test 80.49
Computation 59.27 477.51 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 125.37 1.57 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 241.11
System 188.79
Allocate 329.91 111.23 Kalloc/sec
Fill 136.04 1082.91 MB/sec
Copy 181.52 907.60 MB/sec
Stream 333.53
Copy 330.19 1346.57 MB/sec [G5]
Scale 312.42 1297.81 MB/sec [G5]
Add 342.88 1446.91 MB/sec [G5]
Triad 351.25 1445.69 MB/sec [G5]
Quartz Graphics Test 154.81
Line 179.17 4.56 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 172.06 12.10 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 171.77 3.96 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 147.58 1.60 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 120.38 1.96 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 178.12
Spinning Squares 178.12 124.65 frames/sec
User Interface Test 138.33
Elements 138.33 47.07 refresh/sec
Disk Test 105.63
Sequential 114.51
Uncached Write 142.09 56.56 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 137.22 53.56 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 76.73 12.15 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 132.03 53.35 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 98.02
Uncached Write 84.92 1.21 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 102.71 23.17 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 95.49 0.63 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 113.35 23.33 MB/sec [256K blocks]



test2

Results 128.84
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1
System Version 10.2.7
Physical RAM 256 MB
Model PowerMac7,2
Processor PowerPC 970 @ 1.60 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1600 MHz
Bus Frequency 800 MHz
Video Card GeForce FX 5200
Drive Type ST380013AS
CPU Test 115.66
GCD Recursion 72.79 2.84 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 212.47 755.61 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 74.60 1.08 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 131.71 2.03 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 263.97 10.57 Mops/sec
Thread Test 80.64
Computation 59.35 478.12 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 125.77 1.58 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 242.09
System 189.38
Allocate 304.24 102.58 Kalloc/sec
Fill 131.01 1042.84 MB/sec
Copy 203.21 1016.07 MB/sec
Stream 335.44
Copy 332.89 1357.60 MB/sec [G5]
Scale 314.62 1306.98 MB/sec [G5]
Add 343.47 1449.40 MB/sec [G5]
Triad 353.27 1453.97 MB/sec [G5]
Quartz Graphics Test 151.82
Line 172.21 4.38 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 172.08 12.11 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 172.93 3.99 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 143.64 1.56 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 116.68 1.90 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 173.26
Spinning Squares 173.26 121.25 frames/sec
User Interface Test 136.51
Elements 136.51 46.45 refresh/sec
Disk Test 105.58
Sequential 114.08
Uncached Write 145.76 58.03 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 137.39 53.63 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 76.66 12.14 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 126.90 51.27 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 98.25
Uncached Write 87.25 1.25 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 103.36 23.31 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 94.82 0.63 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 110.76 22.80 MB/sec [256K blocks]



test3:

Results 135.21
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1
System Version 10.2.7
Physical RAM 256 MB
Model PowerMac7,2
Processor PowerPC 970 @ 1.60 GHz
L1 Cache 64K (instruction), 32K (data)
L2 Cache 512K @ 1600 MHz
Bus Frequency 800 MHz
Video Card GeForce FX 5200
Drive Type ST380013AS
CPU Test 118.69
GCD Recursion 73.95 2.89 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 198.78 706.93 Mflop/sec
AltiVec Basic 78.23 1.14 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 143.08 2.20 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library 263.18 10.53 Mops/sec
Thread Test 81.63
Computation 60.51 487.47 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 125.39 1.57 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 234.46
System 180.08
Allocate 297.39 100.27 Kalloc/sec
Fill 131.40 1045.97 MB/sec
Copy 175.84 879.22 MB/sec
Stream 335.90
Copy 332.45 1355.82 MB/sec [G5]
Scale 313.41 1301.93 MB/sec [G5]
Add 345.68 1458.75 MB/sec [G5]
Triad 355.03 1461.23 MB/sec [G5]
Quartz Graphics Test 153.34
Line 175.22 4.46 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 171.20 12.04 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 173.84 4.01 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 144.02 1.56 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 119.57 1.95 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 179.16
Spinning Squares 179.16 125.37 frames/sec
User Interface Test 136.37
Elements 136.37 46.40 refresh/sec


as you can see, it does better the more times you run it.

still doesnt seem right.
 
Originally posted by 1stunna
test1:

Results 124.04

test2

Results 128.84

test3:

Results 135.21

as you can see, it does better the more times you run it.

still doesnt seem right.

This is why I think we should all AVOID using unproven benchmarks (which happens to be ALL OF THEM in my opinion).

Someone should just write to Adobe, and request a prescripted Photoshop / Illustrator salvo for download.

Contact reliable 3D software makers and get identical 3D files to render for the 3D enthusiasts, etc.

Other than that the reporting of benchmarks is just a HUGE waste of everyone's time.
 
yes, i would have much rather run psbench, or some optimized g5 cinebench. but as you said, the adobe people require you to install SW, something the asses at my school wont allow. and cinebench has not yet been updated.

if there is any other standalone bench thats been optimized, id be more than happy to run it.
 
Originally posted by tazznb
Someone should just write to Adobe, and request a prescripted Photoshop / Illustrator salvo for download.

Boy...Illustrator. My friend is a developer on the Illustrator team...I dunno if that app is even optimized for the 7450 core yet, let alone the G5. Well, maybe that is an exaggeration, but suffice it to say that it is not one of Adobe's more streamlined apps. I don't even know if it takes advantage of Altivec yet.
 
G5 and Panther

I think what we are going to find is that the G5 and Panther will bring the most visible speed improvements. Panther has had some really nice reengineering which means thread handling is vastly improved... which particularly benefits dual proc machines, but also benefits us all with slower 800 Mhz iMacs (boo hoo).

Apple have said in their documentation for ADC members that optimising for the G5, will likely optimise for all processors.

What I'd like to see is Cinebench run on a G5, with Panther (even if it is a developer version). I think we'd see a great improvement on scores then!
 
Originally posted by garymm
do you think it's possible that it's giving you the current cpu speed? I'm pretty sure OS X automatically throttles down the CPU on a laptop if it's not being used.
But if it were reporting the cpu speed incorrectly, it wouldn't surprise me. I've heard a lot of complaints about it.
Actually, I'm on wall power and have my power settings set to go full bore all the time. It's just Xbench.
 
Originally posted by tazznb

Contact reliable 3D software makers and get identical 3D files to render for the 3D enthusiasts, etc.

well, this is exactly what cinebench is, a few standardized scenes running through the Cinema4D engine... of course, the engine is not optimized yet, but that is pretty much what you get if you are doing 3D using Cinema4D NOW...
 
Originally posted by macrumors12345
Boy...Illustrator. My friend is a developer on the Illustrator team...I dunno if that app is even optimized for the 7450 core yet, let alone the G5. Well, maybe that is an exaggeration, but suffice it to say that it is not one of Adobe's more streamlined apps. I don't even know if it takes advantage of Altivec yet.

Yes, despite the tweaking Adobe did to PS when dualies first came out on the Mac, I think the general assumption that Adobe software is well written for the Mac is FALSE. I hope I'm wrong with the latest PS plugin for the G5. I saw some comparisons of software running on dual processor machines done by CreativeMac (this was probably over a year ago) and Adobe barely got any benefit from two processors. However, Studio Artist (which makes no particular claims to dual processor optimization) took much better advantage of two processors.

I know my examples are a bit dated, but I haven't seen any reason to beleive things have change. This goes triple for Adobe video apps (duh, why would they want to help Apple on this front). Again, I hope that with the G5 that Adobe puts a little more effort into making their Mac software optimized.
 
Originally posted by 1stunna
Code:
test1:

Results        124.04        
        System Info               
                Xbench Version               1.1
                System Version               10.2.7
                Physical RAM               256 MB
               Model                PowerMac7,2
                Processor                PowerPC 970 @ 1.60 GHz
                    L1 Cache               64K (instruction), 32K (data)
                     L2 Cache               512K @ 1600 MHz
                     Bus Frequency               800 MHz
               Video Card               GeForce FX 5200
              Drive Type               ST380013AS
        CPU Test       90.16        
                GCD Recursion       72.93        2.85 Mops/sec
               Floating Point Basic      210.14        747.32 Mflop/sec
               AltiVec Basic       78.29        1.14 Gflop/sec
               vecLib FFT       49.00        755.06 Mflop/sec
               Floating Point Library      262.85        10.52 Mops/sec
       Thread Test       80.49        
                Computation        59.27        477.51 Kops/sec, 4 threads
             Lock Contention       125.37        1.57 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
     Memory Test       241.11        
                System        188.79        
                        Allocate        329.91        111.23 Kalloc/sec
                       Fill        136.04        1082.91 MB/sec
                       Copy        181.52        907.60 MB/sec
               Stream        333.53        
                        Copy        330.19        1346.57 MB/sec [G5]
                      Scale        312.42        1297.81 MB/sec [G5]
                      Add        342.88        1446.91 MB/sec [G5]
                      Triad        351.25        1445.69 MB/sec [G5]
      Quartz Graphics Test      154.81        
                Line        179.17        4.56 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
             Rectangle        172.06        12.10 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
             Circle        171.77        3.96 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
             Bezier        147.58        1.60 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
             Text        120.38        1.96 Kchars/sec
       OpenGL Graphics Test      178.12        
                Spinning Squares       178.12        124.65 frames/sec
       User Interface Test      138.33        
                Elements        138.33        47.07 refresh/sec
       Disk Test       105.63        
                Sequential        114.51        
                        Uncached Write       142.09        56.56 MB/sec [4K blocks]
                     Uncached Write       137.22        53.56 MB/sec [256K blocks]
                     Uncached Read       76.73        12.15 MB/sec [4K blocks]
                     Uncached Read       132.03        53.35 MB/sec [256K blocks]
             Random        98.02        
                        Uncached Write       84.92        1.21 MB/sec [4K blocks]
                     Uncached Write       102.71        23.17 MB/sec [256K blocks]
                     Uncached Read       95.49        0.63 MB/sec [4K blocks]
                     Uncached Read       113.35        23.33 MB/sec [256K blocks]



test2

Results     128.84        
        System Info               
                Xbench Version               1.1
                System Version               10.2.7
                Physical RAM               256 MB
               Model                PowerMac7,2
                Processor                PowerPC 970 @ 1.60 GHz
                    L1 Cache               64K (instruction), 32K (data)
                     L2 Cache               512K @ 1600 MHz
                     Bus Frequency               800 MHz
               Video Card               GeForce FX 5200
              Drive Type               ST380013AS
        CPU Test       115.66        
                GCD Recursion       72.79        2.84 Mops/sec
               Floating Point Basic      212.47        755.61 Mflop/sec
               AltiVec Basic       74.60        1.08 Gflop/sec
               vecLib FFT       131.71        2.03 Gflop/sec
               Floating Point Library      263.97        10.57 Mops/sec
       Thread Test       80.64        
                Computation        59.35        478.12 Kops/sec, 4 threads
             Lock Contention       125.77        1.58 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
     Memory Test       242.09        
                System        189.38        
                        Allocate        304.24        102.58 Kalloc/sec
                       Fill        131.01        1042.84 MB/sec
                       Copy        203.21        1016.07 MB/sec
               Stream        335.44        
                        Copy        332.89        1357.60 MB/sec [G5]
                      Scale        314.62        1306.98 MB/sec [G5]
                      Add        343.47        1449.40 MB/sec [G5]
                      Triad        353.27        1453.97 MB/sec [G5]
      Quartz Graphics Test      151.82        
                Line        172.21        4.38 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
             Rectangle        172.08        12.11 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
             Circle        172.93        3.99 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
             Bezier        143.64        1.56 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
             Text        116.68        1.90 Kchars/sec
       OpenGL Graphics Test      173.26        
                Spinning Squares       173.26        121.25 frames/sec
       User Interface Test      136.51        
                Elements        136.51        46.45 refresh/sec
       Disk Test       105.58        
                Sequential        114.08        
                        Uncached Write       145.76        58.03 MB/sec [4K blocks]
                     Uncached Write       137.39        53.63 MB/sec [256K blocks]
                     Uncached Read       76.66        12.14 MB/sec [4K blocks]
                     Uncached Read       126.90        51.27 MB/sec [256K blocks]
             Random        98.25        
                        Uncached Write       87.25        1.25 MB/sec [4K blocks]
                     Uncached Write       103.36        23.31 MB/sec [256K blocks]
                     Uncached Read       94.82        0.63 MB/sec [4K blocks]
                     Uncached Read       110.76        22.80 MB/sec [256K blocks]



test3:

Results     135.21        
        System Info               
                Xbench Version               1.1
                System Version               10.2.7
                Physical RAM               256 MB
               Model                PowerMac7,2
                Processor                PowerPC 970 @ 1.60 GHz
                    L1 Cache               64K (instruction), 32K (data)
                     L2 Cache               512K @ 1600 MHz
                     Bus Frequency               800 MHz
               Video Card               GeForce FX 5200
              Drive Type               ST380013AS
        CPU Test       118.69        
                GCD Recursion       73.95        2.89 Mops/sec
               Floating Point Basic      198.78        706.93 Mflop/sec
               AltiVec Basic       78.23        1.14 Gflop/sec
               vecLib FFT       143.08        2.20 Gflop/sec
               Floating Point Library      263.18        10.53 Mops/sec
       Thread Test       81.63        
                Computation        60.51        487.47 Kops/sec, 4 threads
             Lock Contention       125.39        1.57 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
     Memory Test       234.46        
                System        180.08        
                        Allocate        297.39        100.27 Kalloc/sec
                       Fill        131.40        1045.97 MB/sec
                       Copy        175.84        879.22 MB/sec
               Stream        335.90        
                        Copy        332.45        1355.82 MB/sec [G5]
                      Scale        313.41        1301.93 MB/sec [G5]
                      Add        345.68        1458.75 MB/sec [G5]
                      Triad        355.03        1461.23 MB/sec [G5]
      Quartz Graphics Test      153.34        
                Line        175.22        4.46 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
             Rectangle        171.20        12.04 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
             Circle        173.84        4.01 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
             Bezier        144.02        1.56 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
             Text        119.57        1.95 Kchars/sec
       OpenGL Graphics Test      179.16        
                Spinning Squares       179.16        125.37 frames/sec
       User Interface Test      136.37        
                Elements        136.37        46.40 refresh/sec


as you can see, it does better the more times you run it. 

still doesnt seem right.
code works ;)
 
Originally posted by MOM
Yes, despite the tweaking Adobe did to PS when dualies first came out on the Mac, I think the general assumption that Adobe software is well written for the Mac is FALSE.

I think your right. PS has a *lot* of legacy code in it, which probably hasn't been changed for years. It's not multi-threaded, it was tweaked to work with Carbon on X, and generally is MUCH slower than similar applications doing the same thing.

The optimising that Adobe has done for the G4 and Altivec and the G5 will likely only effect some operations, albeit perhaps commonly used, time-consuming ones.

The user interface needs a heck of a rewrite to even make it usable if you ask me.
 
Adobe hardly optomized Photoshop for OS X. My Dads 400 MHz Graphite iMac w/ 384 MB of RAM on OS 9.2 opens Photoshop 4x faster than my Powermac MDD Dual 867 w/ 768 MB of RAM.
 
Sunbaked and 1Stunna, I would suggest you get some more RAM for your systems. Even if it is fast RAM, more than 256 will really help you out. OS X loves that stuff. Since you have to put it in pairs get two 256 Dimms and your set, if you can afford more even better.
 
More RAM is sure to be better for all real world things. But I would like to mention tha on AppleInsider someone ran Xbench with 1GB and 2GB or RAM and the results were similar as reported here. Actuaaly the 2GB Ram did worse. Then again, who cares about XBench.
 
>ultrafiel

I was just quoting and modifying the thing with the {[ code ] .... [ / code ]} so I could read 1Stunna's test.
 
What do these numbers mean?

Originally posted by 1stunna
test1:
Results 124.04
test2
Results 128.84
test3:
Results 135.21

I'm really hoping the 1.6Ghz G5 is comparable to a similarly priced PC but I don't grok benchmark numbers like this. What do the numbers *actually* mean? Are there places that give the numbers for PCs? Is it even worth comparing the benchmark on different platforms?

I just want to know if the 1.6Ghz G5 (which will cost me over $3,000 AUD) is going to be comparable to a $2,000 AUD PC (which I'm told is what I can expect to pay for a decent PC - presumably a P4 2.4-6 Ghz or similar AMD with a similar setup to the Mac). I can tolerate a certain discrepancy in the price due to the excellent software available on Mac OS X (compared to whatever I can get running under Linux/FreeBSD on the PC).

Of course, if the G5 isn't going to keep up, I'll get a PC and use my lowly iMac DV 400 for iMove/iTunes/Appleworks etc. I want to get a new Mac but here in Australia, the "Macs cost the same as PCs" argument doesn't work. One day Apple may fix the price difference here but I'm not holding my breath.

Link
 
Originally posted by henryblackman
I think your right. PS has a *lot* of legacy code in it, which probably hasn't been changed for years. It's not multi-threaded, it was tweaked to work with Carbon on X, and generally is MUCH slower than similar applications doing the same thing.

The optimising that Adobe has done for the G4 and Altivec and the G5 will likely only effect some operations, albeit perhaps commonly used, time-consuming ones.

The user interface needs a heck of a rewrite to even make it usable if you ask me.

Photoshop it multithreaded.
You probably want photoshop elements.
 
since this is a benchmark topic i thought i would post my single g4 1.4 for comparison purpose for those looking at those numbers

Results- 114 cpu test 163 quartz 135 open gl 170 i ran the test only once.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.